Efficacy and Safety of Different Doses of Bevacizumab Combined With Pemetrexed and Platinum in First-Line Treatment of Advanced NSCLC: A Retrospective-Real World Study

Background: Bevacizumab was demonstrated to have efficacy in patients with NSCLC. However, application of different doses of bevacizumab in different clinical trials was overlooked. This study aims to investigate the effects and safety of different doses of bevacizumab in the treatment.Methods: From January 2016 to March 2020, 79 patients with NSCLC received first-line combination treatment with chemotherapy (pemetrexed + platinum) and bevacizumab for four cycles; patients without progression after four cycles were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bevacizumab combined with pemetrexed, of which 57 patients received bevacizumab at a dose of 7.5 mg/kg and 22 patients at a dose of 15 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints were overall response rate, disease control rate, and adverse events.Results: There was no significant difference between two groups in effectiveness; Median PFS in 7.5 mg/kg group and in 15 mg/kg group were 8.0 and 8.7 months, respectively (p = 0.663), reaching the primary endpoint. The ORR and DCR in the bevacizumab 7.5 and 15 mg/kg group were 45.46 and 86.0% vs. 50 and 90.9% showing no statistical significance (p = 0.804 and 0.717). Most of side effects were tolerable. The incidences of overall toxicities were higher in 15 mg/kg group (p = 0.001). No new safety signals were observed.Conclusion: We did not detect significant difference of efficacy and safety between 7.5 mg/kg group and 15 mg/kg group for bevacizumab administration, the cost-effectiveness of the 7.5 mg/kg group was significantly better than that of the 15 mg/kg group.

Download Full-text

Post first-line dacarbazine or temozolomide in neuroendocrine carcinoma

Endocrine Connections ◽

10.1530/ec-20-0192 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. 498-505

Author(s):

Thomas Couronne ◽

Paul Girot ◽

Julien Hadoux ◽

Thierry Lecomte ◽

Alice Durand ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Progression Free Survival ◽

Unknown Primary ◽

Line Treatment ◽

First Line ◽

Morphological Response ◽

Free Survival ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Morphological Responses ◽

Line Chemotherapy

Objective First-line chemotherapy in metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) is based on etoposide and platinum. However, there is no standard concerning second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of dacarbazine or temozolomide in metastatic digestive NEC as post first-line treatment. Material and methods This study included patients with a metastatic NEC of digestive or unknown primary site. All patients received platinum-etoposide as first-line chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were clinical/morphological responses, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Results Twenty-seven patients were included: 17 received dacarbazine and 10 temozolomide as post-first line treatments. Median PFS was 3.0 (95%CI (2.2;3.7)) months. There was no significant difference between dacarbazine and temozolomide on PFS. Clinical and morphological responses were found in 12 and 9 patients, respectively. Median OS was 7.2 (95%CI (2.2;12.2)) months. The toxicity profile was that expected with such treatments. Conclusion LV5FU2-dacarbazine or temozolomide-capecitabine chemotherapies allow a temporary clinical response for almost half of patients and/or a morphological response for a third of patients.

Download Full-text

Randomised, controlled trial of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine in patients from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America: The EMPOwER study

Cephalalgia ◽

10.1177/03331024211024160 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 033310242110241

Author(s):

Shuu-Jiun Wang ◽

Artemio A Roxas ◽

Bibiana Saravia ◽

Byung-Kun Kim ◽

Debashish Chowdhury ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Latin America ◽

Middle East ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Episodic Migraine ◽

Acute Migraine ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Medication Treatment ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Specific Medication ◽

Secondary Endpoints

Objective EMPOwER, a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. Methods Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment. Results At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was −3.1, −4.2, and −4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P < 0.001 [140 mg]). Both erenumab doses were also significantly superior to placebo on all secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days, change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days and change from baseline in the Headache Impact Test-6™ scores. The safety profile of erenumab was comparable with placebo; no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions This study of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America met all primary and secondary endpoints. A consistent numerical benefit was observed with erenumab 140 mg versus erenumab 70 mg across all efficacy endpoints. These findings extend evidence of erenumab’s efficacy and safety to patients under-represented in previous trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03333109

Download Full-text

L-Asparaginase, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisolone (LHOP) Chemotherapy as a First-Line Treatment for Dogs with Multicentric Lymphoma

Animals ◽

10.3390/ani11082199 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (8) ◽

pp. 2199

Author(s):

Jih-Jong Lee ◽

Albert Taiching Liao ◽

Shang-Lin Wang

Keyword(s):

Clinical Stage ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Cell Phenotype ◽

Chop Chemotherapy ◽

First Line ◽

Canine Lymphoma ◽

Free Survival ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Multicentric Lymphoma ◽

First Line Treatment

Cyclophosphamide exhibits the weakest therapeutic effect compared with vincristine and doxorubicin in the CHOP (C, cyclophosphamide; H, doxorubicin; O, vincristine; and P, prednisolone) chemotherapeutic protocol for the treatment of canine lymphoma. Twenty dogs with multicentric lymphoma were treated using the LHOP protocol, which used l-asparaginase in place of cyclophosphamide, and the outcomes were historically compared with those of dogs that received CHOP chemotherapy in the same institution. No significant differences were found in age (p = 0.107), body weight (p = 0.051), sex (p = 0.453), clinical stage V (p = 1), substage b (p = 0.573), T-cell phenotype (p = 0.340), overall response (p = 1), and hypercalcaemia status (p = 1) between the LHOP and CHOP groups. The adverse effects of l-asparaginase were well tolerated and self-limiting. The median PFS (progression-free survival) and median ST (survival time) in the LHOP group were 344 days (range: 28–940 days) and 344 days (range: 70–940 days), respectively. The median PFS and median ST in the CHOP group were 234 days (range: 49–1822 days) and 314 days (range: 50–1822 days), respectively. The dogs that received LHOP chemotherapy had a significantly longer PFS than the dogs that received CHOP chemotherapy (p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed in ST between the LHOP and CHOP groups (p = 0.131). Our study findings thus indicate that the LHOP protocol can be used as a first-line chemotherapeutic protocol in canine multicentric lymphoma.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of combined androgen blockade with antiandrogen for advanced prostate cancer

Current Oncology ◽

10.3747/co.26.4203 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 26 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Y. Yang ◽

R. Chen ◽

T. Sun ◽

L. Zhao ◽

F. Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

First Line ◽

Combined Androgen Blockade ◽

Hazard Ratios ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Androgen Blockade

Background Combined androgen blockade (cab) is a promising treatment modality for prostate cancer (pca). In the present meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of first-line cab using an antiandrogen (aa) with castration monotherapy in patients with advanced pca.Methods PubMed, embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) published through 12 December 2016. Hazard ratios (hrs) with 95% confidence intervals (cis) were determined for primary outcomes: overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs). Subgroup analyses were performed for Western compared with Eastern patients and use of a nonsteroidal aa (nsaa) compared with a steroidal aa (saa).Results Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using an aa was associated with significantly improved os (n = 14; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.84 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and pfs (n = 13; hr: 0.89; 95% ci: 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.04). No significant difference in os (p = 0.71) and pfs (p = 0.49) was observed between the Western and Eastern patients. Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using a nsaa was associated with significantly improved os (hr: 0.88; 95% ci: 0.82 to 0.95; p = 0.0009) and pfs (hr: 0.85; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.98; p = 0.007)—a result that was not achieved with cab using a saa. The safety profiles of cab and monotherapy were similar in terms of adverse events, including hot flushes, impotence, and grade 3 or 4 events, with the exception of risk of diarrhea and liver dysfunction or elevation in liver enzymes, which were statistically greater with cab using an aa.Conclusions Compared with castration monotherapy, first-line cab therapy with an aa, especially a nsaa, resulted in significantly improved os and pfs, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced pca.

Download Full-text

Comparing The Cost-Effectiveness Of Rituximab Maintenance (MR) and Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) Consolidation Therapy Following First-Line Chemo/Immunochemotherapies For Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2923.2923 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2923-2923

Author(s):

Qiushi Chen ◽

Turgay Ayer ◽

Adam C Rose ◽

Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽

Christopher R. Flowers

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Consolidation Therapy ◽

Line Treatment ◽

First Line ◽

Free Survival ◽

Frontline Treatment ◽

The Cost

Abstract Background Follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, has been regarded incurable and no consensus in management strategy has existed so far. In current clinical practice, the most commonly used frontline therapy is the immunochemotherapy (R-chemotherapy). Several phase III randomized trials - ECOG1496(Hochster, JCO2009), PRIMA(Salles, Lancet2011), and FIT(Morschhauser, JCO2008) - have shown that rituximab maintenance (MR) therapy and radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation in addition to the frontline R-chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival (PFS) and help achieve a higher response quality. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance or consolidation therapy versus observation after frontline treatment from the US payer's perspective. Methods We developed separate Markov models over patients' lifetime for PRIMA, ECOG, and FIT trial to compare the cost and effectiveness of observation with MR/RIT after completion of frontline treatment. Published progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were extracted and fitted with Log-logistic regression survival model. Progression risks and cause-specific mortality after first-line treatment were extrapolated from the corresponding fitted PFS and OS model for each arm. Risk estimates after second-line treatment were identical for different models, estimated from the published survivals of observation arm in EORTC20981 trial. Costs for administration, monitoring, and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for physician services, and drug costs were the wholesale acquisition cost, all valued in 2013 US dollars. In the microsimulation, initial age at diagnosis was sampled from the age distribution according to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database. All costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per life-year gained (LY) and cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model robustness in parameter uncertainties were addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Compared with observation, MR therapy provided 0.998 QALYs (0.901 LYs) at a cost of $43234 in PRIMA study, 1.070 QALYs (0.866 LYs) at a cost of $50146 in ECOG study, while RIT consolidation provided 0.795 QALYs (0.653 LYs) at a cost of $46085 in FIT trial. The incremental cost per QALY gained for RIT in FIT, and MR in PRIMA and ECOG were $57975, $43301, and $46844, respectively. From the table summarizing effectiveness and cost results, RIT and MR had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, while RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to relatively high incidence of adverse events in the RIT arm. Conclusions We used the same modeling framework and consistent parameter estimates to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR and RIT compared to observation after frontline treatment for FL patients. All strategies showed favorable cost-effectiveness profile with ICER below $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Differences in induction therapies in three trials should also be noted when the ICERs of three models are compared. Disclosures: Flowers: Abbott, Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Sanofi, Spectrum, Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Genentech Bio-oncology : Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Phase II study of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE) in recurrent glioblastoma

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.2066 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. 2066-2066

Author(s):

T. Aoki ◽

K. Nojima ◽

T. Mizutani ◽

M. Ishikawa ◽

A. Takasu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Phase Ii ◽

Response Rate ◽

Phase Ii Trial ◽

Phase Ii Study ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽

First Line ◽

Open Label ◽

Free Survival ◽

Secondary Endpoints

2066 Background: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide ( ICE ) in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Methods: This was an open-label, single-center phase II trial. Forty-two patients with first recurrent glioblastoma after surgery, standard radiotherapy and a first-line temozolomide-based or ACNU-based chemotherapy, were enrolled.The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months ( PFS-6 ), and secondary endpoints were response rate, toxicity, and survival. Chemotherapy consisted of Ifosfamide ( 700 mg / m2 on day 1, 2 and 3 ), carbopaltin ( 100 mg / m2 on day 1 ), etoposide ( 70 mg / m2 on day 1, 2, and 3 ), every 6 weeks. Results: PFS-6 was 37 %. The median PFS was 17 weeks. Response rate was 27 %. Adverse events were generally mild ( grade 1 or 2 ) and consisted mainly of alopecia. Conclusions: This regimen is well tolerated and has activity in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Bevacizumab (BEV) plus second-line taxane (TAX) or other chemotherapy (CT) for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Subgroup analysis of RIBBON-2.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2011.29.27_suppl.290 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 29 (27_suppl) ◽

pp. 290-290

Author(s):

A. Brufsky ◽

V. Valero ◽

B. Tiangco ◽

S. R. Dakhil ◽

A. Brize ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Small Sample Size ◽

Objective Response ◽

Metastatic Breast ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Small Sample ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Free Survival

290 Background: In three randomized trials in the first-line metastatic breast cancer (MBC) setting, combining BEV with CT significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) and objective response rate (ORR) vs. CT alone. BEV also showed a significant PFS benefit in the second-line MBC setting (RIBBON-2) when combined with TAX or other CT. We analyzed data from the subgroup of patients (pts) with TNBC in RIBBON-2. Methods: Eligible pts had MBC that had progressed on first-line CT without BEV. Second-line CT (TAX, gemcitabine, capecitabine, or vinorelbine) was chosen before 2:1 randomization to CT with either BEV (10 mg/kg q2w or 15 mg/kg q3w) or placebo (PLA). All pts could receive BEV at progression. The primary endpoint was PFS. Results: RIBBON-2 included 684 pts; 159 (23%) had TNBC and of these, 67 (42%) received TAX with BEV/PLA. Baseline characteristics were broadly similar in the two treatment arms. In an exploratory analysis of pts with TNBC, BEV + CT led to significantly improved PFS and ORR vs. CT alone, and a trend toward improved overall survival (OS). The magnitude of the effect was particularly pronounced in pts receiving TAX CT. Conclusions: Pts with TNBC derive significant ORR and PFS benefit from BEV combined with second-line CT. Despite the small sample size, there was a trend (HR 0.624; p = 0.0534) toward OS benefit in pts treated with BEV, especially with TAX CT. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as the perioperative treatment of patients with potentially resectable liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer: A single arm, open-label, multicenter phase II trial (ML22298; NCT00997685).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.777 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 777-777

Author(s):

Feng Lin ◽

Guoxin Li ◽

Zhonghua Chu ◽

Chunyi Hao ◽

Mingqing Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Objective Response ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

R0 Resection ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Open Label ◽

Free Survival ◽

Perioperative Treatment ◽

Post Operation ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Tumor Remission

777 Background: Surgical resection can improve survival of patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). Here, we investigatedthe efficacy and safety of XELOX as perioperative treatment for patients with potentially resectable CLM. Methods: Patients with potentially resectable liver-only metastases from CRC were enrolled. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival (PFS); and the secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, overall survival (OS) and safety profile of perioperative treatment of XELOX. Eligible patients were treated with XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 b.i.d. for 14 days every 3 weeks). Tumor remission was assessed by CT after 6 weeks (2 cycles) of chemotherapy. Resectability of CLM was assessed by CT after 12 weeks (4 cycles) of chemotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy using XELOX was started within 8 weeks after hepatectomy. Results: Thirty patients (17 males and 13 females) were enrolled from 10 medical sites between January 2010 and October 2011, with median age of 57.5 years (range: 32-77). Median PFS was 336 days (95% CI: 173~385), and median OS was 912 days (95% CI: 516~1332). The ORR was 40% (12/30). The conversion rate from unresectable to resectable was 43.3% (13/30). Among these 11 patients who had received surgery (2 had withdrawn consent), 10 (90.9%) had received R0 resection. Subgroup analysis shows that patients who had received hepatectomy had longer median PFS [95% CI] (382 days [210~518] vs. 173 days [111~337], p = 0.0268) and median OS [95% CI] (1332 [721~NA] vs. 516 [295~1046], p = 0.005). There were 4 patients with post-operation complications of ascites and/or hydrothorax, and 3 patients had early chemotherapy termination due to drug-related AEs, including leukopenia, hepatotoxicity and diarrhea. Conclusions: Perioperative chemotherapy of XELOX is an option for patients with potentially resectable CLM due to the effect in prolonging PFS and OS, as well as the manageable toxicities and post-operation complications. Clinical trial information: NCT00997685.

Download Full-text

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus epirubicin as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a randomized, phase III trial.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.1087 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 1087-1087

Author(s):

Zhongsheng Tong ◽

Shufen Li ◽

Yehui Shi ◽

Xu Wang ◽

Chen Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽

Response Rate ◽

Metastatic Breast ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

First Line ◽

Free Survival ◽

Significant Difference

1087 Background: Paclitaxel/carboplatin combinations are highly active in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We conducted a randomized, phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin (TP) with paclitaxel/epirubicin (TE) as first-line therapy for MBC. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL). Methods: From June 2009 to January 2015, 231 patients were randomly assigned, 115 of whom were randomized to TP and 116 to TE. Baseline characteristics were relatively well-balanced in the two treatments. Results: After a median follow-up of 29 months, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in objective response rate (ORR) (38.3% vs. 39.7%, respectively). Both the progression-free survival (p=0.158) and overall survival (p=0.369) were very similar between the two treatments. Both regimens were well tolerated. The main toxicities were myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reactions, and alopecia. TP showed higher grades 3–4 alopecia and higher nausea (p<0.05). TE showed higher incidence of myelosuppression than TP (p<0.05) (Table). Those patients whose epirubicin cumulative dose was more than 1000 mg/m2 did not suffer worse cardiotoxicity. Conclusions: Our study suggests that TP arm is an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with MBC, especially in those previously exposed to epirubicin in the adjuvant setting. TP has some advantages, such as less cost and less side effects (myelosuppression and fatigue). Clinical trial information: NCT02207361. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Phase II study of sequential first-line pazopanib (PAZ) followed by everolimus (EVE) in patients (pts) with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (CATChEz Study).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.648 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽

pp. 648-648 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Paul L. de Souza ◽

Shirley Wong ◽

Sanjeev Sewak ◽

Dusan Kotasek ◽

Bhumsuk Keam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Free Survival ◽

Anticancer Treatment ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Prior Systemic Therapy ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Metastatic Rcc

648 Background: EVE following failure of sorafenib or sunitinib for RCC was first approved by the FDA in 2009. CATChEz (NCT01545817) was designed to test the activity of EVE following first-line PAZ in pts with advanced or metastatic RCC who had not received prior systemic therapy. Methods: From 2012 to 2016, pts received first-line PAZ followed by EVE until progressive disease (PD), death, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or study termination. Pts with PD during or within 6 months of stopping PAZ were eligible for EVE. Pts off study treatment were evaluated for PD, survival, and updates on anticancer treatment every 8 weeks until death or end of study. The primary efficacy endpoint was median progression-free survival (mPFS) for the second-line EVE treatment period; secondary endpoints included other survival measures, and safety evaluations were for second-line EVE and grade 3/4 toxicities attributable to PAZ and EVE. Results: Of 74 pts who started first-line PAZ, 38 received ≥1 dose of second-line EVE. The primary endpoint of mPFS from the start of second-line EVE and the secondary endpoint of mPFS with first-line PAZ (Table) were consistent with previous reports; no unexpected adverse events (AEs) were reported. All pts had ≥1 treatment-emergent AE, 83.8% had grade ≥3 AEs, and 71.6% had serious AEs. Of 34 total deaths, 29 were due to PD and 5 were due to AEs (2 related to EVE [lower respiratory tract infection; pulmonary sepsis]; 3 unrelated to study treatment). Conclusions: Efficacy and safety outcomes were consistent with published phase III data. The CATChEz study supports sequential first-line use of PAZ followed by EVE for the treatment of pts with advanced or metastatic RCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01545817. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text