Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Versus Paclitaxel and Ifosfamide in Patients With Carcinosarcoma of the Uterus or Ovary: An NRG Oncology Trial

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Powell ◽  
Virginia L. Filiaci ◽  
Martee L. Hensley ◽  
Helen Q. Huang ◽  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type I Error ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Type I ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Oncology Trial ◽  
Limited Precision

PURPOSE This phase III randomized trial ( NCT00954174 ) tested the null hypothesis that paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) is inferior to paclitaxel and ifosfamide (PI) for treating uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adults with chemotherapy-naïve UCS or ovarian carcinosarcoma (OCS) were randomly assigned to PC or PI with 3-week cycles for 6-10 cycles. With 264 events in patients with UCS, the power for an overall survival (OS) hybrid noninferiority design was 80% for a null hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 against a 13% greater death rate on PI with a type I error of 5% for a one-tailed test. RESULTS The study enrolled 536 patients with UCS and 101 patients with OCS, with 449 and 90 eligible, respectively. Primary analysis was on patients with UCS, distributed as follows: 40% stage I, 6% stage II, 31% stage III, 15% stage IV, and 8% recurrent. Among eligible patients with UCS, PC was assigned to 228 and PI to 221. PC was not inferior to PI. The median OS was 37 versus 29 months (HR = 0.87; 90% CI, 0.70 to 1.075; P < .01 for noninferiority, P > .1 for superiority). The median progression-free survival was 16 versus 12 months (HR = 0.73; P = < 0.01 for noninferiority, P < .01 for superiority). Toxicities were similar, except that more patients in the PC arm had hematologic toxicity and more patients in the PI arm had confusion and genitourinary hemorrhage. Among 90 eligible patients with OCS, those in the PC arm had longer OS (30 v 25 months) and progression-free survival (15 v 10 months) than those in the PI arm, but with limited precision, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION PC was not inferior to the active regimen PI and should be standard treatment for UCS.

Phase II randomized trial of docetaxel plus cetuximab or bortezomib in patients with advanced NSCLC and performance status (PS) 2—CALGB 30402

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7595-7595 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lilenbaum ◽  
X. Wang ◽  
L. Gu ◽  
J. Kirshner ◽  
E. Vokes
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Type I ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Male Response

7595 Background: There is no standard treatment for patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC and PS 2. Docetaxel (D) is active and well tolerated on a weekly schedule. Cetuximab (C) and Bortezomib (B) are new agents with activity in NSCLC. We explored these two new combinations in PS 2 pts. Methods: In a multi-center randomized phase II trial, untreated pts with advanced NSCLC and PS 2 were randomized to D 30 mg/m2 d1,8,15 q. 28 days in combination with either C 400 mg/m2 week 1 then 250 mg/m2 weekly, or B 1.6 mg/m2 d1,8,15 q. 28 days for 4 cycles. Pts with CR/PR/SD were allowed to continue C or B until PD. The study was non-comparative and the primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. The trial had a type I error of 0.0746 and power of 0.9 to differentiate a 6-mo PFS of <20% vs. >42%. Results: 64 pts were enrolled between 7/05 and 9/06. 5 were ineligible and 3 never received protocol treatment. Results are reported for 55 pts (27 D+C; 28 D+B). Most pts had stage IV adenoCa and 13% had brain metastases. Median age was 70 (range, 35–88) and 65% were male. Response: 10.5% for D+C and 13.6% for D+B. Median PFS was 3.1 mo for D+C and 1.8 mo for D+B. PFS rates at 4 mo (data not yet mature for 6-mo): 33% and 28%, respectively. Median survival: 3.8 mo for D+C and 3.3 mo for D+B. Gr 3/4 hematologic toxicity was 17% in both arms. Gr 3/4 non-heme toxicities were 44% in D+C and 36% in D+B arm. 5 pts died of treatment-related toxicities (3 D+C; 2 D+B). Conclusions: These results confirm the poor prognosis associated with a PS of 2. Based on our preliminary analysis, neither combination produced results that justify further research in this subset of patients. The treatment of PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC remains a vexing problem and new approaches are urgently needed. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

GOG0182-ICON5: 5-arm phase III randomized trial of paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) vs combinations with gemcitabine (G), PEG-lipososomal doxorubicin (D), or topotecan (T) in patients (pts) with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian (EOC) or primary peritoneal (PPC) carcinoma

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5002-5002 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Bookman
Keyword(s):  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Type I ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Initial Surgery ◽  
Event Triggered

5002 Background: P-C is a global standard for treatment of EOC and PPC (GCIG Consensus Conference 2005). Although effective, most patients recur with resistant disease. Agents were selected for new combinations based on clinical activity, interaction with cisplatin in tumor models, and feasibility. Methods: Eligible pts had appropriate initial surgery without other therapy, GOG/WHO PS 0–2, and adequate vital organ function. Pts were stratified by group, diagnosis (EOC vs PPC), stage (III vs IV), macroscopic residual tumor (yes vs no), and intent for interval cytoreduction (yes vs no). An event-triggered interim analysis (IA) of progression-free survival (PFS) was to identify arms for full accrual. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), determined by an event-triggered pair-wise comparison to the standard regimen (intent-to-treat), with a 90% chance of detecting a true hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33, limiting type I error to 1.25% (two-tailed) for each comparison. Sample size to be adjusted based on accrual rate and IA. Results: Accrual exceeded 1200/yr. IA for PFS (May 2004) with 1,345 events. Median PFS ranged from 15.4–17.5 m. PFS HRs ranged from 0.94–1.07 with the standard error of each log HR approximately 0.086. Extension was not recommended, and accrual closed at 4312 pts (177 ineligible). Median age 58 yrs; 13% PPC, 14% stage IV, 22% microscopic. 81% completed therapy, 4% progressed, 9% discontinued for toxicity. At least 42 deaths possibly treatment-related (<1%). Expected hematologic toxicity related to regimen intensity. Conclusions: For the regimens evaluated, there is no evidence that adding a third active cytotoxic agent prolongs PFS in EOC. Analysis of OS and impact of stratification factors are in progress. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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]

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.

Phase III TRIDENT trial: Radiation and temozolomide +/- tumor treating fields in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2580-TPS2580
Author(s):  
Wenyin Shi ◽  
Lawrence Kleinberg ◽  
Suriya A. Jeyapalan ◽  
Samuel Aaron Goldlust ◽  
Seema Nagpal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Type I ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Post Surgery

TPS2580 Background: Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a non-invasive, regional antimitotic treatment approved as a standard of care for glioblastoma (GBM). In the EF-14 phase III trial, TTFields (200 kHz) plus temozolomide (TMZ) significantly increased the survival of patients with newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) without increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields-related AEs were mainly skin AEs. In preclinical models, TTFields increase the therapeutic effects of radiation therapy (RT). A pilot study showed that TTFields concomitant with RT and TMZ is well tolerated. The benefit of concomitant TTFields with RT and TMZ will be tested in this phase III TRIDENT randomized trial. Methods: TRIDENT is an international phase III randomized trial comparing standard RT with TMZ vs the triple combination of RT plus TMZ with concomitant TTFields. RT is delivered through the TTFields arrays. Patients in both arms will receive maintenance TTFields with TMZ. TTFields (200 KHz) will be delivered >18 hours/day using Optune. Patients will continue TTFields treatment until second recurrence. Patients with pathologically confirmed newly ndGBM, ≥ 18 years, KPS ≥ 70, either sex, post-surgery or biopsy, who are amenable for RT/TMZ therapy will be enrolled. Patients will be stratified by extent of resection and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Secondary end points include: progression free survival (PFS; RANO), 1- and 2-year survival rates, overall radiological response (ORR; RANO), progression-free survival (PFS2, PFS6, PFS12); severity and frequency of AEs (CTCAE V5.0); pathological changes in resected GBM tumors post treatment; quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30); and correlation of OS to TTFields compliance. The hypothesis is that concomitant TTFields with radiation and TMZ will significantly improve OS as compared to radiation and TMZ alone. The sample size is 950, with 475 in each arm to detect a HR <0.8 with a 5% type I error. Survival will be measured from the time of randomization until date of death. At the time of analysis, patients who are lost to follow-up or still on protocol follow-up will be censored at the last date known to be alive.

Analytical Approaches for the BOAC SNP Panel Association with Progression Free Survival in Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 2715-2715
Author(s):  
Brian G. Van Ness ◽  
Christine Ramos ◽  
Vipin Kumar ◽  
Michael Steinbach ◽  
Brian GM Durie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Expression Profiles ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Support Vector ◽  
Type I ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Snp Panel ◽  
Analytical Approaches

Abstract The Bank On A Cure (BOAC) has established DNA banks from multiple cooperative and institutional clinical trials, and platforms for examining the association of genetic variations (SNPs) with disease risk and outcomes in myeloma. We have previously described the development and content of a novel custom SNP panel that contains 3,404 SNPs in 983 genes, representing cellular functions and pathways that may influence disease response, toxicities, complications, and survival. Although survival certainly varies according to tumor heterogeneity (ie. chromosomal abnormalities, gene expression variations) germline variations that influence the microenvironment, drug distribution, drug transport and metabolism, may also have an association with event free survival outcomes. To explore SNP associations with progression free survival (PFS) we compared the BOAC SNP profiles of short term PFS (less than 1 year, n=70) versus long term PFS (greater than 3 years, n=73) in two phase III clinical trials (ECOG E9487 and SWOG S9321). A variety of analytical approaches was undertaken including univariate rank ordering, recursive partitioning, and support vector machine learning tools (SVM). Each of these approaches has advantages and limitations in dealing with type I false positive errors as well as sensitivity and specificity. We included subset validation approaches and randomization of classes to address how robust and predictive different approaches were. From our analysis we conclude germline genomic variations do have an impact on progression free survival, with a subset of SNPs from the panel reaching 76% predictive association and hazard ratios of PFS of 9.6 (CI 4.5, 20.5), p&lt;0.001, using SVM analysis. Based on univariate approaches, we find the most significant variations associated with PFS differences were genes that could be functionally categorized as pharmacologic. The presentation will focus on the analytical approaches, and refinements necessary to assure predictive value compared to random associations. Notwithstanding the clear importance of tumor cell variations in genetic deregulation, we conclude that various functions within the bone marrow and drug response likely interplay as a complex influence on disease progression, response, and survival. This suggests combining gene expression profiles of the tumors with germline SNP profiles may provide more accurate prognosis. These combined analytical approaches are currently being developed with BOAC data bases, and examples will be discussed.

scholarly journals ES-2 Phase 3 TRIDENT Trial: Radiation and Temozolomide with or without Tumor Treating Fields in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. ii3-ii3
Author(s):  
Mitsutoshi Nakada
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Type I ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Post Surgery

Abstract Background: Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a non-invasive, regional antimitotic treatment approved as a standard-of-care for glioblastoma. In the EF-14 Phase 3 trial, TTFields (200 kHz) plus temozolomide (TMZ) significantly increased survival of patients with newly diagnosed GBM(ndGBM) without increasing systemic toxicity. TTFields-related AEs were mainly skin AEs. In preclinical models, TTFields increase the therapeutic effects of radiation therapy (RT). A pilot study showed that TTFields concomitant with RT and TMZ is well tolerated. The benefit of concomitant TTFields with RT and TMZ will be tested in the TRIDENT trial. Methods: TRIDENT is an international phase III randomized trial comparing standard RT/TMZ vs the triple combination of RT/TMZ with concomitant TTFields. RT is delivered through the TTFields arrays. Patients in both arms will receive maintenance TTFields/TMZ. TTFields (200 kHz) will be delivered over18 hours/day using Optune. Patients will continue TTFields treatment until second recurrence. Patients with pathologically confirmed ndGBM, over 18 years old, KPS over 70, either sex, post-surgery or biopsy, and amenable for RT/TMZ therapy will be stratified by extent of resection and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Secondary end points: progression free survival (PFS; RANO), 1- and 2-year survival rates, overall radiological response (ORR; RANO), progression-free survival (PFS2, PFS6, PFS12); severity and frequency of AEs (CTCAE V5.0); pathological changes in resected GBM tumors post treatment; quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30); and correlation of OS to TTFields compliance. The hypothesis is that concomitant TTFields/RT/TMZ will significantly improve OS versus RT/TMZ. Sample size (N=950; 475/arm) will detect a HR lower than 0.8 with 5% type I error. Survival will be measured from the time of randomization until date of death. At the time of analysis, patients lost to follow-up or still on protocol follow-up will be censored at the last date known to be alive.

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]

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (24) ◽  
pp. 3946-3952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Detlef Quietzsch ◽  
Frank Gieseler ◽  
Michael Gonnermann ◽  
Herbert Schönekäs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. Conclusion These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.

Randomized, open-label, phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PemC) followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PCB) followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8003-LBA8003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Zinner ◽  
Helen J. Ross ◽  
Robert Weaver ◽  
Ramaswamy Govindan ◽  
Viran R. Holden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Data ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Type I ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document