Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab in Combination With Gemcitabine and Erlotinib in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (13) ◽  
pp. 2231-2237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Walter L. Vervenne ◽  
Jaafar Bennouna ◽  
Yves Humblet ◽  
Sharlene Gill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
To Receive

PurposeTreatment with gemcitabine provides modest benefits in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine shows a small but significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus gemcitabine alone. Phase II results for bevacizumab plus gemcitabine provided the rationale for a phase III trial of gemcitabine-erlotinib plus bevacizumab or placebo.Patients and MethodsPatients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2/week), erlotinib (100 mg/day), and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine, erlotinib, and placebo in this double-blind, phase III trial. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate, and safety.ResultsA total of 301 patients were randomly assigned to the placebo group and 306 to the bevacizumab group. Median OS was 7.1 and 6.0 months in the bevacizumab and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.07; P = .2087); this difference was not statistically significant. Adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.86; P = .0002). Treatment with bevacizumab plus gemcitabine-erlotinib was well tolerated: safety data did not differ from previously described safety profiles for individual drugs.ConclusionThe primary objective was not met. The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in OS in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PFS, however, was significantly longer in the bevacizumab group compared with placebo. No unexpected safety events were observed from adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib.

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]

Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 1960-1966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm J. Moore ◽  
David Goldstein ◽  
John Hamm ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
Joel R. Hecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

PurposePatients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsA total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

Final efficacy and safety results of pemetrexed (pem) continuation maintenance (mtc) therapy in the elderly from the PARAMOUNT phase III study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8068-8068
Author(s):  
Cesare Gridelli ◽  
Michael Thomas ◽  
Kumar Prabhash ◽  
Claude El Kouri ◽  
Fiona Helen Blackhall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Data ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Continuation Maintenance ◽  
To Receive

8068 Background: The PARAMOUNT phase III trial showed that mtc pem after pem-cisplatin induction was well tolerated and effective for patients (pts) with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Here we present the final OS and safety data from this study in elderly (≥70 yrs) vs. non-elderly (<70 yrs) pts. Methods: In this double-blind study, 539 pts with a PS of 0/1 were randomized (2:1, stratified for stage, PS and induction response) to receive mtc pem (n=359, 500 mg/m2, day 1, 21 day cycle) or placebo (plc) (n=180). The study was powered for PFS (previously reported) and key secondary OS. Subgroup analyses were done for pts ≥70 yrs and <70 yrs. Results: Subgroups (≥70: n=92, 17%; <70: n=447, 83%) had similar baseline characteristics except for PS and sex (elderly, PS 0/1: 22%/77%, M/F: 66%/34%; non-elderly, PS 0/1: 34%/65%, M/F: 56%/44%). The median ages were 73 yrs (≥70) and 60 yrs (<70). The mean cycles received for pts ≥70 were 7.4 (range 1-36, dose intensity (DI) 91%) for pem and 4.5 for plc, and for pts <70 were 8.0 (range 1-44, DI 94%) for pem and 5.1 for plc. The OS HRs (pem vs. plc) were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.55-1.4) for ≥70 yrs and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.60-0.95, p=0.015) for<70 yrs. The median OS (95% CI) (≥70) was 13.7 mo (10.4-19.4) for pem and 12.1 mo (8.4-16.9) for plc; the median OS (95%CI) (<70) was 13.9 mo (12.5-16.1) for pem and 10.8 mo (9.5-12.9) for plc. The 1 and 2 yr OS rates (95% CI) for the elderly were 60% (45-71%) and 34% (21-47%) for pem vs. 52% (36-66%) and 28% (15-43%) for plc, respectively. For non-elderly pts, the 1 and 2 yr OS rates were 58% (52-63%) and 31% (26-37%) for pem vs. 43% (35-52%) and 19% (13-27%) for plc, respectively. The Table shows a subset of drug-related AEs. Conclusions: Continuation mtc pem had comparable survival and toxicity profiles in the ≥70 and <70 yrs subgroups. However, Gr 3/4 anemia and neutropenia were numerically higher for pts ≥70 yrs. Clinical trial information: NCT00789373. [Table: see text]

Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (16) ◽  
pp. 2212-2217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Herrmann ◽  
György Bodoky ◽  
Thomas Ruhstaller ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Emilio Bajetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Score ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Good Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeThis phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent.ResultsA total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms.ConclusionGemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

scholarly journals A phase III trial of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1639-1645 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Oettle ◽  
D. Richards ◽  
R.K. Ramanathan ◽  
J.L. van Laethem ◽  
M. Peeters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

scholarly journals CALLA: Efficacy and safety of concurrent and adjuvant durvalumab with chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in women with locally advanced cervical cancer: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 1065-1070
Author(s):  
Jyoti Mayadev ◽  
Ana T Nunes ◽  
Mary Li ◽  
Michelle Marcovitz ◽  
Mark C Lanasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cell Death ◽  
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Cervical Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer ◽  
To Receive

BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with programmed blockade of the cell death-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 pathway may promote a more immunogenic environment through increased phagocytosis, cell death, and antigen presentation, leading to enhanced immune-mediated tumor surveillance.Primary ObjectiveThe CALLA trial is designed to determine the efficacy and safety of the programmed cell death-ligand 1 blocking antibody, durvalumab, with and following concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in women with locally advanced cervical cancer.Study HypothesisDurvalumab concurrent with and following concurrent chemoradiotherapy will improve progression-free survival in patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IB2 to IVA cervical cancer compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone.Trial DesignCALLA is a phase III, randomized, multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously (IV)) or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 cycles. All patients will receive external beam radiotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m2) IV or carboplatin (area under the curve 2) IV once a week for 5 weeks, followed by image-guided brachytherapy.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaThe study will enroll immunotherapy-naïve adult patients with histologically confirmed cervical adenocarcinoma, cervical squamous, or adenosquamous carcinoma FIGO 2009 stages IB2–IIB node positive and stage IIIA–IVA with any node stage. Patients will have had no prior definitive surgical, radiation, or systemic therapy for cervical cancer.Primary EndpointThe primary endpoint is progression-free survival (assessed by the investigator according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1, histopathological confirmation of local tumor progression or death).Sample SizeApproximately 714 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either durvalumab + concurrent chemoradiotherapy or placebo + concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsPatient enrollment is continuing globally with an estimated completion date of April 2024.Trial RegistrationNCT03830866.

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Tipifarnib Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1430-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
H. van de Velde ◽  
P. Karasek ◽  
H. Oettle ◽  
W.L. Vervenne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly × 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P = .75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade ≥ 3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. Conclusion The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.

Gemcitabine + cisplatin (GEM+CIS) in combination with regional hyperthermia (RHT) in second-line therapy of gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14073-14073
Author(s):  
K. E. Tschoep ◽  
V. Milani ◽  
G. Schmidt ◽  
X. Schiel ◽  
S. Abdel-Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Regional Hyperthermia ◽  
System A ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Prospective Phase ◽  
Gemcitabine Refractory

14073 Background: Our completed phase III trial comparing GEM + CIS vs. GEM alone showed good efficacy for the combination arm in 1st-line therapy (ASCO abstr. No. 1003, 2003). Based on the rationale of chemosensitization of CIS by RHT we are performing a prospective phase II study with GEM + CIS combined with RHT. Methods: Until 8/2005 12 pts with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who failed GEM-based 1st-line-therapy were enrolled in this study. One cycle consisted of GEM (1000mg/m2) on d1 followed by CIS (25mg/m2) on d2 and d4 combined with RHT (BSD system). A total of 2 blocks each of 4 cycles were given biweekly. The main endpoints were time to second progression (TTP2) and 1-year event free survival (1-yr-EFS). TTP2 and EFS were defined as time from start of 2nd-line therapy until progression of disease or death. Response (RECIST) was evaluated after 4 and 8 cycles of therapy. Results: Pt characteristics: median age 60; M:F=8:4. Median time to first progression (TTP1) was 6 months (95% CI:2–7). 8/12 pts received all 8 cycles. No toxic death and no grade 4 toxicity occurred. In 12/2005 10/12 pts were evaluable for this study. Control of disease (1CR, 2MR, 4NC) and progression (3PD) occurred in 70% and 30% respectively. The median TTP2 is 8 months (95% CI: 2–13) and the 1-yr-EFS is 32% (95% CI:3–61). 7 pts are alive at 12/2005. Conclusions: Our ongoing study (EudraCT-No 2005–003855–11) using RHT combined with GEM + CIS shows promising antitumor activity with a very encouraging TTP2 and median 1-yr-EFS in the 2nd-line treatment of GEM-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document