scholarly journals Kinase Inhibitors and Ovarian Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katopodis ◽  
Chudasama ◽  
Wander ◽  
Sales ◽  
Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Gynecological Malignancy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents ◽  
Multiple Signaling

Ovarian cancer is fifth in the rankings of cancer deaths among women, and accounts for more deaths than any other gynecological malignancy. Despite some improvement in overall-(OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) following surgery and first-line chemotherapy, there is a need for development of novel and more effective therapeutic strategies. In this mini review, we provide a summary of the current landscape of the clinical use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Emerging data from phase I and II trials reveals that a combinatorial treatment that includes TKIs and chemotherapy agents seems promising in terms of PFS despite some adverse effects recorded; whereas the use of mTOR inhibitors seems less effective. There is a need for further research into the inhibition of multiple signaling pathways in ovarian cancer and progression to phase III trials for drugs that seem most promising.

Evaluation of safety and efficacy of somatuline autogel in combination with molecular targeted therapies (MTT) in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs): Data from one Spanish cohort.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14671-e14671
Author(s):  
Jaume Capdevila ◽  
Isabel Sevilla ◽  
Vicente Alonso ◽  
Luis Anton Aparicio ◽  
Paula Jimenez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Somatostatin Analogs ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Hormonal Control ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Studies ◽  
Spanish Cohort

e14671 Background: Analysis of the mechanisms of action of somatostatin analogs (SSAs) and mTOR inhibitors or tyrosine kinase inhibitors suggest that they may provide synergistic effects when used in combination for the treatment of pts with NETs. Methods: This is a Spanish multicenter cohort of pts with NETs treated with the SSAs lanreotide (LAN) and MTTs at 35 Spanish referral centers. Data of 159 combined treatments (133 pts) was retrospectively collected in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of such combinations. Results: 133 pts (52,6% M) with a median age of 59,9 years; ECOG 0/1/2/3: 34%/49%/16%/1%; Lung/Pancreas/Gastrointestinal//Unknown(UK) origin: 9%/48% /32%/11%; G1/G2/G3/UK: 41%/32%/1%/26%; Non Functioning/ Functioning (69%/31%) received treatment with MTT + LAN for synergistic antiproliferative purpose in 85% of the cases, hormonal control (13,5%) or both objectives (1,5%). 115 pts received one combination treatment and 18 pts received between 2 (12 pts) and 5 (1 pt). LAN was administrated in combination with sunitinib (61), everolimus (73), bevazucimab (9), sorafenib (8) and pazopanib (8). The reported toxicity was determined by the MTT profile with no significant additional severe adverse events related to the combination with LAN. The probability of progression-free survival (PFS) at 6, 12 and 18months was 89%, 73% and 67% respectively for those pts who received LAN and sunitinib (n=50) and 78%, 69% and 57%, respectively for those pts who received LAN and everolimus (n=56). Median PFS was not reached at the time of analysis. Conclusions: The combination of LAN and MTT, mainly everolimus and sunitinib, is widely used in clinical practice without unexpected toxicities. Median PFS will be higher than data observed in phase III studies with sunitinib and everolimus, raising the hypothesis of enhanced efficacy combining SSAs and MTT that should be confirmed in randomized prospective clinical trials. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Bevacizumab use in the frontline, maintenance and recurrent settings for ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. 225-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn E Haunschild ◽  
Krishnansu S Tewari
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Fda

On 13 June 2018, Genentech, Inc. issued a press release announcing that the US FDA had approved the antiangiogenesis drug, bevacizumab, in combination with chemotherapy for frontline and maintenance therapy for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Regulatory approval was based on the National Cancer Institute-sponsored Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocol 0218, the Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-center and multi-national clinical trial that met its primary end point, progression-free survival. Bevacizumab is now approved in the frontline, platinum-sensitive recurrent and platinum-resistant recurrent settings for epithelial ovarian cancer. This review will address the broad range of clinical trials addressing the efficacy of bevacizumab use in ovarian cancer.

scholarly journals P14.15 Benefit of Bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma. Results of 81 patients from a single institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii69-iii69
Author(s):  
O Absalyamova ◽  
G Kobiakov ◽  
G Agabekyan ◽  
A Poddubsky ◽  
A Belyashova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rapid Progression ◽  
Concomitant Disease ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Continuous Application

Abstract BACKGROUND No standard of care has been established for patients with progressive glioblastoma (rGBM). Previous studies suggested that bevacizumab (BEV) is safe and produces responses that result in a decreased use of glucocorticoids and increased progression-free survival (PFS) with an unclear effect on overall survival (OS). Crossover to BEV in the control arm is the possible reason why the advantage of BEV has not been proven in Phase III trials. We retrospectively analyzed own results of BEV treatment in rGBM. MATERIAL AND METHODS 81 patients progressed after radiotherapy plus concomitant and maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) and undergo BEV as monotherapy (BevMo, 11 patients) or in combinations (Irinotecan (BevI) - 53, lomustine (BevL)- 11, TMZ (BevT) - 6. Median age 54 years. Among them 33 patients were re-irradiated: 11 - radiosurgery (RS), 20 fractionated irradiation (RT), 2 - RS+RT. 33 patients continued BEV after progression with changing or adding cytostatic. PFS was calculated from the date of verification, PFS1 - from the date of 1-st progression, PFS2 - from the date of 2-nd progression. RESULTS Median PFS was 9.0 ([CI] 7.0–10.9) months. Median PFS1 was 10.5 ([CI] 8.1–12.9) months. In the BevMo, BevI, BevL, BevT group PFS1 was 15.7, 10.1, 10.5, 13.2 months, respectively, p=0.7. Objective response (OR) was reached in 34%, stable disease (SD) in 28%, progression (PD) in 37% patients. 16 patients stopped BEV without progression (4-patient`s decision, 7- doctor`s decision, 2 - adverse event, 3 - concomitant disease). Median time of BEV treatment was 11.6 months. Median BEV-free interval till progression was 3.7 months. 33 patients continued or restarted BEV after progression. Median PFS2 was 8.0 ([CI] 4.9–11.1) months. The median OS from the date of 1-st progression was 23.5 months ([CI] 18.7–27.4). In groups with RT, RS, RS+RT and no re-irradiarion OS was 24.6 ([CI] 17.6–31.5), 35.4 ([CI] 35.0–35.8), 17.8, 20.6 ([CI] 15.2–26.0), respectively, p=0.2. CONCLUSION OS in our group is outrageously high. Maintaining BEV after progression was effective. In our group BEV discontinuation led to rapid progression. The resumption of Bev with progression was effective, which indicates the advisability of its continuous application.

Is FDA-Approved Bevacizumab Cost-Effective When Included in the Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e775-e783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole P. Chappell ◽  
Caela R. Miller ◽  
Aaron D. Fielden ◽  
Jason C. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Value Assessment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Resistant ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved incorporation of bevacizumab (BEV) into the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), cost-value measures are an essential consideration, as evidenced by the recent ASCO Value Framework initiative. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and reviewed the net health benefit (NHB) of this expensive treatment. Methods: A cost-effectiveness decision model was constructed using results from a phase III trial comparing BEV plus cytotoxic chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in patients with PROC. The Avastin Use in Platinum-Resistant Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (AURELIA) trial demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival and quality of life in patients receiving BEV. Costs, paracentesis rates, and adverse events were incorporated, including subgroup analysis of different partner chemotherapy agents. Results: Inclusion of BEV in the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer meets the common willingness-to-pay incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of $100,000 per progression-free life-year saved (LYS) for 15-mg/kg dosing and approaches this threshold for 10-mg/kg dosing, with an ICER of $160,000. In sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of BEV by 13% (from $9,338 to $8,100 per cycle) allows 10-mg/kg dosing to reach a $100,000 ICER. Exploratory analysis of different BEV chemotherapy partners showed an ICER of $76,000 per progression-free LYS (6.5-month progression-free survival improvement) and $54,000 per LYS (9.1-month overall survival improvement) for the addition of BEV to paclitaxel once per week. Using the ASCO framework for value assessment, the NHB score for BEV plus paclitaxel once per week is 48. Conclusion: Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 ICER, the addition of BEV to chemotherapy either demonstrates or approaches cost-effectiveness and NHB when added to the treatment of patients with PROC.

scholarly journals Cisplatin-Based First-Line Treatment of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Joint Analysis of MILES-3 and MILES-4 Phase III Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (25) ◽  
pp. 2585-2592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Gridelli ◽  
Alessandro Morabito ◽  
Luigi Cavanna ◽  
Andrea Luciani ◽  
Paolo Maione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Health Status Score

Purpose To test the efficacy of adding cisplatin to first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within a combined analysis of two parallel phase III trials, MILES-3 and MILES-4. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than age 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed, without or with cisplatin. In each trial, 382 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of death of 0.75, with 80% power and two-tailed α of .05. Trials were closed prematurely because of slow accrual, but the joint database allowed us to analyze the efficacy of cisplatin on the basis of intention-to-treat and adjusted by trial, histotype, non-platinum companion drug, stage, performance status, sex, age, and size of the study center. Results From March 2011 to August 2016, 531 patients (MILES-3, 299; MILES-4, 232) were assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed without (n = 268) or with cisplatin (n = 263). Median age was 75 years, 79% were male, and 70% had nonsquamous histology. At a median 2-year follow-up, 384 deaths and 448 progression-free survival events were recorded. Overall survival was not significantly prolonged with cisplatin (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P = .14) and global health status score of quality of life was not improved, whereas progression-free survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92; P = .005) and objective response rate (15.5% v 8.5%; P = .02) were significantly better. Significantly more severe hematologic toxicity, fatigue, and anorexia were found with cisplatin. Conclusion The addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy does not significantly prolong overall survival, and it does not improve global health status score of quality of life in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Clinical Equipoise for Trials of Novel Biologic Therapies, Therapeutic Success Rates, and Predictors of Success: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Doah Cho ◽  
Felicia T. Roncolato ◽  
Johnathan Man ◽  
John Simes ◽  
Sarah J. Lord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Predictors Of Success ◽  
Biologic Therapies ◽  
Therapeutic Success ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose The demand for more rapid access to novel biologic therapies than randomized controlled trials can deliver is a topic of ongoing study and debate. We aimed to inform this debate by estimating therapeutic success from phase III trials comparing novel biologic therapies with standard of care and identifying predictors of success. Methods This was a meta-analysis of phase III trials evaluating novel biologic therapies in advanced breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Therapeutic success was defined as statistically significant results for the primary end point favoring novel biologic therapies. Results Of 119 included phase III trials (76,726 patients), therapeutic success was 41%, with a statistically significant relative reduction in disease progression and death for novel biologic therapies over standard of care of 20% and 8%. Therapeutic success did not improve over time (pre-2010, 33%; 2010 to 2014, 44%; P = .2). Predictors of success were a biomarker-selected population (odds ratio, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.05 to 10.95) and progression-free survival end point compared with overall survival (odds ratio, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.41 to 11.39). Phase III trials with a biomarker-selected population showed a larger 28% progression-free survival benefit than phase III trials overall (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) but similar 8% overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94). Therapeutic success of phase III trials with and without a preceding phase II trial were 43% and 30%, respectively Conclusion Therapeutic success of novel biologic therapies in phase III trials, including therapies with a matching predictive biomarker, was modest and has not significantly improved over time. Equipoise remains and supports the ongoing ethical and scientific requirement for phase III randomized controlled trials to estimate treatment efficacy and assess the value of potential biomarkers.

Progression-free survival and overall survival in phase III trials of molecular-targeted agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Lung Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuyuki Hotta ◽  
Etsuji Suzuki ◽  
Massimo Di Maio ◽  
Paolo Chiodini ◽  
Yoshiro Fujiwara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document