phase iii trials
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

1200
(FIVE YEARS 286)

H-INDEX

62
(FIVE YEARS 10)

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175883592110666
Author(s):  
Christine Simmons ◽  
Daniel Rayson ◽  
Anil Abraham Joy ◽  
Jan-Willem Henning ◽  
Julie Lemieux ◽  
...  

Background: Evidence to date supports continued human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) suppression beyond progression on HER2-directed therapy for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. Data from several phase II and III trials evaluating HER2-directed therapy following second-line T-DM1 have recently become available. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the published and presented literature to identify phase II and phase III trials assessing novel HER2-targeted agents as third-line therapy or beyond for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer using search terms ‘breast cancer’ AND ‘HER2’ AND ‘advanced’ AND (‘phase II’ OR ‘phase III’). Results: Eight clinical trials reporting efficacy outcomes on third-line or greater HER2-directed therapy for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer were identified. In phase III trials, margetuximab and neratinib combinations demonstrated significant 1.3-month (hazard ratio, HR = 0.71, p < 0.001) and 0.1-month (HR = 0.76, p = 0.006) net improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), respectively, with no significant improvements in overall survival (OS). Tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine demonstrated a significant 2.7-month improvement in median PFS (HR = 0.57, p < 0.00001) and a 5.5-month improvement in median OS (HR = 0.73, p = 0.004) in a randomized phase II trial, including significant clinical benefit for patients with brain metastases. Finally, trastuzumab-deruxtecan, zenocutuzumab, and poziotinib demonstrated benefit in phase II trials with the most robust overall response rate (62.0%) and median duration of response (18.2 months) observed for trastuzumab-deruxtecan among heavily pretreated patients. Conclusion: Tucatinib plus trastuzumab and capecitabine significantly prolongs OS, and promising preliminary response outcomes for trastuzumab-deruxtecan suggest that sequencing of these regimens following second-line therapy is reasonable.


Author(s):  
Mandeep Garg ◽  
Muniraju Maralakunte ◽  
Yashwant Kumar ◽  
Harish Bhujade ◽  
Inder Paul Sehgal ◽  
...  

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is one of the most effective tools to curb the pandemic. Multiple vaccine candidates based on different platforms are available for emergency use presently. However, in common all the vaccines target spike protein, which is a dominant immunogen of severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Adequate immunogenicity and efficacy are demonstrated by many of the vaccines in clinical phase III trials. The emergence of the new variant of concern is believed to be associated with less susceptibility to the post-infection or post-vaccination mounted immunity. It is a global concern currently threatening the progression of the vaccination drive. Nevertheless, the results of the presently available phase III clinical trials promote COVID-19 vaccination to prevent disease severity and COVID-19 related deaths. Cross-immunity towards the new variants of concern especially against the South African variant is yet to be explored and managed adequately.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Sebastian ◽  
Bayli DiVita Dean ◽  
Catherine T. Flores

Immunotherapy has been demonstrably effective against various cancers, particularly those in the hematopoietic system and those with a high tumor-specific antigenic burden. Unfortunately, the development of immunotherapeutic strategies has proven more challenging against central nervous system (CNS) malignancies due to several unique characteristics of brain tumors that pose extraordinary barriers. To date, there is a lack of phase III trials demonstrating improved progression-free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) using immunotherapies in brain cancers. However, a better mechanistic understanding of current resistance to immunotherapies along with data from novel innovative techniques to overcome these barriers has been encouraging. This chapter gives an overview of current immunotherapies in the development of brain cancers. We will evaluate the present studies available in the clinical setting and any of their potential findings. The chapter will also discuss pertinent preclinical strategies whose translation for human use would potentially prove efficacious or provide invaluable scientific discovery.


Antioxidants ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1937
Author(s):  
Jan Olof G. Karlsson ◽  
Per Jynge ◽  
Louis J. Ignarro

On 2 July 2021, highly negative results were reported from the POLAR A and M phase III trials in patients with colorectal cancer, treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen and co-treated with calmangafodipir (CaM; PledOx®; PledPharma AB/Egetis Therapeutics AB) or placebo. The results revealed persistent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in 54.8% of the patients treated with PledOx, compared with 40.0% of the patients treated with the placebo (p < 0.05), i.e., a 37% increase in incidence of the side effect that the trial was aimed to prevent. The damaging outcome of the trials differed diametrically from an in-parallel conducted mice study and from a clinical trial with mangafodipir, the active ingredient of CaM. According to the authors of the POLAR report, the etiology of the profound increase in CIPN in the PledOx arm is unclear. However, these devastating effects are presumably explained by intravenous administrations of PledOx and oxaliplatin being too close in time and, thereby, causing unfavorable redox interactions between Mn2+ and Pt2−. In the mice study as well as in the preceding phase II clinical trial (PLIANT), PledOx was administered 10 min before the start of the oxaliplatin infusion; this was clearly an administration procedure, where the devastating interactions between PledOx and oxaliplatin could be avoided. However, when it comes to the POLAR trials, PledOx was administered, for incomprehensible reasons, “on Top of Modified FOLFOX6” at day one, i.e., after the two-hour oxaliplatin infusion instead of before oxaliplatin. This is a time point when the plasma concentration of oxaliplatin and Pt2+-metabolites is at its highest, and where the risk of devastating redox interactions between PledOx and oxaliplatin, in turn, is at its highest.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 6078
Author(s):  
Justin Yu ◽  
Tiffany T. Pham ◽  
Narine Wandrey ◽  
Mackenzie Daly ◽  
Sana D. Karam

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a rare cancer of the nasopharyngeal mucosa with a specific geographic predisposition. NPC is often associated with Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV) infection and as a result contains many characteristic biomarkers. Treatment of locally-contained NPC is generally achieved through use of radiotherapy (RT), as part of a multimodality treatment regimen. Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent RT and platinum-based chemotherapy regimen has emerged as the definitive treatment of choice for locoregionally-advanced NPC. Recently, immunotherapy is finding a role in the treatment of recurrent or metastatic NPC. Immune checkpoint blockade therapies targeted against the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor have demonstrated efficacy in early phase clinical trials, with ongoing phase III trials in effect. Biomarkers for treatment efficacy remain an ongoing area of investigation, with important prognostic implications on the horizon.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4040-4040
Author(s):  
David Cucchi ◽  
Tobias Polak ◽  
Gert J. Ossenkoppele ◽  
Jacob M. Rowe ◽  
Elihu H. Estey

Abstract Reports of "positive" results in early phase trials as presented at ASH presumably herald therapeutic advances, or at a minimum, a larger, potentially confirmatory, randomized trial. However, the predictive value of an ASH abstract reporting positive results in AML for subsequent clinical utility seems low (Estey 2006, ASH). Furthermore, not all results presented at ASH are published in peer-reviewed journals, and selectively publishing positive results leads to publication bias. Moreover, truly negative studies may be scientifically more rigorous and accurate than positive studies given the unequivocal findings. The extent of publication bias is unknown as is the frequency with which positive or negative abstracts lead to subsequent investigation in phase III and the reasons why positive phase II studies might not progress to phase III. We downloaded all 2013 - 2015 ASH abstracts (N = 17,251) and evaluated all abstracts reporting phase II clinical trials (N = 371) of novel drugs and therapeutic regimens presented at ASH in these years, covering investigational treatments of MM, CLL, AML, DLBCL, MDS, NHL, ALL, CML, MCL, SLL, other lymphomas and POEMS. We first scored abstracts "positive", "negative" or "inconclusive". Criteria for a positive abstract were words/phrases such as "encouraging", "promising", "could represent a novel therapeutic option" and "warrants investigation in a randomized trial". Negative abstracts included terms such as "does not support further research" and "demonstrates no clinical activity". The remainder were scored as inconclusive. Using this approach, we scored 296/371 (80%) abstracts as positive, 37/371 (10%) as negative, and 38/371 (10%) as inconclusive. 292/371 abstracts (79%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. The abstract conclusion (positive, negative or inconclusive) was not associated with publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Most frequently, studies were published in Blood (34/292 [11.6%]) and British Journal of Haematology (39/292 [13.4%]) . In Blood, 91% (31/34) of the studies were positive. British Journal of Haematology published significantly more negative studies than Blood (26%, Fisher Exact p = 0.02). Abstracts reporting studies with larger sample sizes tended to be published more often (p = 0.066). Differences exist between the abstract conclusion and later peer-reviewed publications. Of positive ASH abstracts, 6% changed to a negative conclusion in the peer-reviewed publication. Similarly, 6.5% of the initial negative abstract later reversed to a positive conclusion. 53% of positive abstracts did not lead to phase III studies, as registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Subsequently, regimens described in positive peer-reviewed publications did not proceed to phase III research in 48%. To explore why, we sent questionnaires to the first and/or last authors of positive studies not prompting phase III trials. 52% responded. Failure of positive phase II trials to proceed to phase III was due to the decision by the pharmaceutical company to halt clinical investigation (44%), lack of any intent to study the drug in phase III in the first place (40%), insufficient funding (35%), insufficient efficacy (despite the "positive" abstract; 33%) and safety concerns (4%) (Figure). Additional reasons for not proceeding to phase III were the availability of newer regimens, the rarity of the disease, or when regulatory approval had already been obtained after phase II. In conclusion, "positive" and "negative" ASH abstracts are published as full papers equally often, although the positive ones may be published more often in journals with higher "impact factors". More than half of the regimens presented in positive ASH abstracts remain unevaluated in randomized phase III trials. A separate problem is the likely tendency to disproportionately submit (and/or accept) positive, rather than negative, studies to ASH in the first place. We believe our findings raise issues in clinical research that may not be in the best interest of patients. This demands more consideration than it currently receives. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ossenkoppele: Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie, AGIOS, BMS/Celgene Astellas,AMGEN, Gilead,Servier,JAZZ,Servier Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Rowe: Biosight Inc.: Consultancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document