KEYNOTE-177: Phase III randomized study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high advanced colorectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Kai-Keen Shiu ◽  
Thierry Andre ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Benny Vittrup Jensen ◽  
Lars Henrik Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
End Points ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 5

6 Background: KEYNOTE-177 (NCT02563002) evaluated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo) as first-line therapy for patients with microsatellite-instability high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the final PFS analysis and analysis of PFS2. Methods: Patients with locally-determined MSI-H/dMMR mCRC and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were randomized 1:1 to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years or investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Q2W ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chosen before randomization). Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient/investigator decision to withdraw, or completion of 35 cycles (pembro only). Patients receiving chemo could crossover to pembro for up to 35 cycles after confirmed PD. Primary end points were PFS (RECIST v1.1, central review) and OS. Secondary end points included ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review) and safety. Exploratory endpoints included duration of response (DOR), PFS2 (time from randomization to progression on next line of therapy or any cause death), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Data cutoff was Feb 19, 2020. Results: At data cutoff a total of 307 patients were randomized (153 to pembro, 154 to chemo). Median (range) study follow-up was 32.4 mo (24.0-48.3). Pembro was superior to chemo for PFS (median 16.5 mo vs 8.2 mo; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; P= 0.0002). The 12- and 24-mo PFS rates were 55.3% and 48.3% with pembro vs 37.3% and 18.6% with chemo. Confirmed ORR was 43.8% vs 33.1%; median (range) DOR was not reached (2.3+ to 41.4+) with pembro vs 10.6 mo (2.8 to 37.5+) with chemo. PFS2 was longer with pembro vs chemo (median not reached vs 23.5 mo [HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). OS analysis is ongoing. Grade ≥3 treatment related adverse event (TRAE) rates were 22% vs 66% for pembro vs chemo. There were no grade 5 TRAEs in the pembro arm and 1 grade 5 intestinal perforation in the chemo arm. HRQoL scores were improved with pembro vs chemo. Conclusions: Pembro provided a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs chemo as first-line therapy for patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, with fewer TRAEs observed. Furthermore, pembro provided a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS2 for patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02563002.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 Study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Andre ◽  
Kai-Keen Shiu ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Benny Vittrup Jensen ◽  
Lars Henrik Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Mismatch Repair ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
End Points ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

LBA4 Background: KEYNOTE-177 (NCT02563002) is a phase 3, randomized open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus standard of care chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo) as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with microsatellite-instability high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the final PFS analysis. Methods: A total of 307 pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC as determined locally and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years or investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Q2W ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo chosen prior to randomization). Treatment continued until PD, unacceptable toxicity, pt/investigator decision to withdraw, or completion of 35 cycles (pembro only). Patients receiving chemo could crossover to pembro for up to 35 cycles after confirmed PD. Primary end points were PFS (RECIST v1.1, central review) and OS. Key secondary end points included ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review), and safety. The data cutoff date for this interim analysis was Feb 19, 2020. The study will continue without changes to evaluate OS. Results: At data cutoff, 153 pts were randomized to pembro and 154 to chemo. Median (range) study follow-up was 28.4 mo (0.2-48.3) with pembro vs 27.2 mo (0.8-46.6) with chemo. Pembro was superior to chemo for PFS (median 16.5 mo vs 8.2 mo; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; P=0.0002). The 12- and 24-mo PFS rates were 55.3% and 48.3% with pembro vs 37.3% and 18.6% with chemo. Confirmed ORR was 43.8% vs 33.1%; median (range) duration of response was not reached (2.3+ to 41.4+) with pembro vs 10.6 mo (2.8 to 37.5+) with chemo. Grade 3-5 treatment related adverse event (AE) rates were 22% vs 66% for pembro vs chemo. One pt in the chemo arm died due to a treatment-related AE. Conclusions: Pembro provided a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS versus chemo as first-line therapy for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, with fewer treatment-related AEs observed and should be the new standard of care for these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02563002 .

Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Report of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors Trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (27) ◽  
pp. 4224-4230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Jose Tabernero ◽  
Auxiliadora Gómez-España ◽  
Bartomeu Massutí ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Continuous Infusion ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Final Report ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Purpose The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus Spanish-based continuous-infusion high-dose fluorouracil (FU) plus oxaliplatin (FUOX) regimens as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX (oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid for 14 days plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks) or FUOX (continuous-infusion FU 2,250 mg/m2 during 48 hours on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 15, and 29 every 6 weeks). Results There were no significant differences in efficacy between XELOX and FUOX arms, which showed, respectively, median time to tumor progression (TTP; 8.9 v 9.5 months; P = .153); median overall survival (18.1 v 20.8 months; P = .145); and confirmed response rate (RR; 37% v 46%; P = .539). The safety profile of the two regimens was similar, although there were lower rates of grade 3/4 diarrhea (14% v 24%) and grade 1/2 stomatitis (28% v 43%), and higher rates of grade 1/2 hyperbilirubinemia (37% v 21%) and grade 1/2 hand-foot syndrome (14% v 5%) with XELOX versus FUOX, respectively. Conclusion This randomized study shows a similar TTP of XELOX compared with FUOX in the first-line treatment of MCRC, although there was a trend for slightly lower RR and survival. XELOX can be considered as an alternative to FUOX.

Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Daniel Sargent ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

KEYNOTE-062: Phase III study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS185-TPS185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Atsushi Ohtsu ◽  
Uma Kher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Points ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

TPS185 Background: Pembrolizumab (pembro) is a monoclonal antibody against PD-1 designed to block its interaction with PD-L1 and PD-L2 and permit an antitumor immune response. In KEYNOTE-012, pembro showed a 22% ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review) and a manageable safety profile in patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer. The randomized, phase 3 KEYNOTE-062 study (NCT02494583) is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of pembro alone or in combination with cisplatin + a fluoropyrimidine with those of cisplatin + a fluoropyrimidine as first-line therapy for PD-L1+/HER2– advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Methods: Key eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 y, locally advanced or metastatic PD-L1+/HER2– gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, ECOG PS 0-1, no active autoimmune disease or brain metastases, and no prior therapy for advanced disease. Pts are randomized 1:1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W (arm 1), pembro + cisplatin 80 mg/m2 Q3W + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 800 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of each Q3W cycle (arm 2), or placebo Q3W + cisplatin + 5-FU (arm 3); 5-FU may be replaced with capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle. Randomization is stratified by region (Europe/North America/Australia vs Asia vs rest of world), disease status (locally advanced vs metastatic), and chosen fluoropyrimidine (5-FU vs capecitabine). Arm 1 is open label; in arms 2 and 3, assignment to pembro vs placebo is double blind. In all arms, treatment will continue for 35 cycles or until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or pt/investigator decision. Response will be evaluated every 6 wk per RECIST v1.1 by central review and per RECIST adapted for immunotherapy response patterns; eligible pts may continue treatment beyond initial RECIST-defined progression. AEs will be assessed throughout treatment and for 30 d thereafter (90 d for serious AEs) and graded per NCI CTCAE v4.0. Pts will be followed for survival every 3 mo. OS and PFS per RECIST v1.1 are the primary study end points; secondary end points include ORR and duration of response. Enrollment in KEYNOTE-062 is ongoing and will continue until ~750 pts have enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT02494583.

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2006-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Cassidy ◽  
Stephen Clarke ◽  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).Patients and MethodsThe initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

scholarly journals Potential of 2018 ASH CLL Data to Alter Standard of Care for Initial CLL Treatment

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5816-5816
Author(s):  
Bruce A Feinberg ◽  
Richard Sweat ◽  
Yolaine Jeune-Smith ◽  
Ajeet Gajra
Keyword(s):  
Market Research ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Primary Specialty ◽  
Anti Cd20

Introduction In the past 5 years, four drugs have received approval for the treatment of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), with most of the data supporting their approvals presented at an ASH meeting. How treating hematologists and oncologists (H/O) incorporate these agents into their practice has implications for all stakeholders. We conducted market research with H/O to understand how CLL data presented at ASH 2018 might alter their treatment preferences. Methods A live meeting in February 2019 convened H/O. The participants were shown data from selected oral and/or poster presentations from the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting and responded to questions regarding their perceptions on the data and its potential impact on current practice. The presentations used included the following: 1) Alliance A041202: a phase III, randomized study in older patients with untreated CLL comparing ibrutinib ± rituximab with bendamustine + rituximab (BR) (Woyach JA, et al. Blood. 2018;132[Suppl 1]:6); and 2) E1912: a phase III, randomized study in younger patients with untreated CLL comparing ibrutinib + rituximab with fludarabine + cyclophosphamide + rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt TD, et al. Blood. 2018;132[Suppl 1]:LBA-4). Participants submitted their demographic responses via a web-based survey and data impression responses via an audience response system at the live meeting. Results 59 H/O participated in this live market research on February 22-23, 2019 and identified their primary specialty as 61% hematologist/oncologist and 34% medical oncologist. The participants were mostly community-based physicians, 50% in private community and 45% in community practices owned by a hospital or academic center. Over one-third have been in practice >20 years and see an average of 20+ patients per day. In the prior 3 months, 31%, 27%, and 18% of the participants initiated first-line treatment on 1, 2, or 3 CLL patients, respectively. The most commonly preferred first-line treatments for CLL patients ≥65 years without del(17p) were: BR (38%), ibrutinib (34%), anti-CD20 monotherapy (17%), and FCR (7%). Based on the results of the Alliance A041202 trial, 88% are likely to use single-agent ibrutinib as their preferred first-line therapy for older CLL patients, 45% very likely and 43% moderately likely. The most commonly preferred first-line treatments for CLL patients <65 years without del(17p) were: FCR (37%), BR (30%), ibrutinib (18%), and ibrutinib + anti-CD20 monotherapy (13%). Based on the results of the E1912 trial, the participants are likely to adopt ibrutinib + CD20 monoclonal antibody (51%), single-agent ibrutinib (20%), FCR (16%), or BR (13%) as their preferred first-line therapy for younger CLL patients. Conclusion Studies of newer mechanism of action drugs like Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are perceived as compelling by treating oncologists and appear likely to replace more traditional chemotherapy-based regimens. The clinical, financial, and patient-centric outcomes of such rapid changes to standard of practice warrant further research. Disclosures Feinberg: Cardinal Health: Employment. Sweat:Cardinal Health: Employment. Jeune-Smith:Cardinal Health: Employment. Gajra:Cardinal Health: Employment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document