A randomized phase II study of nivolumab or nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (mets): The Anti-PD1 Brain Collaboration (ABC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9508-9508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina V. Long ◽  
Victoria Atkinson ◽  
Alexander M. Menzies ◽  
Serigne Lo ◽  
Alexander David Guminski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antitumour Activity ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Leptomeningeal Disease ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated

9508 Background: Nivolumab (nivo) and the combination of nivo + ipilimumab (ipi) improve response rates (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with ipi alone in clinical trials of metastatic melanoma pts, but pts with untreated brain mets were excluded. Brain mets are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in melanoma and their management is critical. We sought to determine the antitumour activity and safety of nivo and nivo+ipi in pts with active melanoma brain mets (NCT02374242). Methods: This open-label, ph II trial enrolled 3 cohorts of pts naïve to anti-PD1/PDL1/PDL2/CTLA4 from Nov 2014 - Feb 2017. Pts with asymptomatic melanoma brain mets with no prior local brain therapy were randomised to cohort A (nivo 1mg/kg + ipi 3mg/kg, Q3W x4, then nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) or cohort B (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W). Cohort C (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) had brain mets 1) that failed local therapy (new +/- progressed in previously treated met), 2) were neurologically symptomatic and/or 3) with leptomeningeal disease. Prior BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) was allowed. The primary endpoint was best intracranial response (ICR) ≥ wk12. Secondary endpoints were best extracranial response (ECR), best overall response (OR), IC PFS, EC PFS, overall PFS, OS, and safety. Results: A total of 66 pts (med f/u 14 mo) were included in this analysis of total 76 planned; median age 60y, 77% male. For cohorts A, B and C: elevated LDH 48%, 58% and 19%; V600BRAF 44%, 56% and 81%; prior BRAFi 24%, 24%, 75%. Table shows RR, PFS and OS. ICR in cohort A treatment naïve vs prior BRAFi was 53% vs 16%. Treatment-related gd 3/4 toxicity in cohorts A, B and C were 68%, 40% and 56%, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions:Nivo monotherapy and ipi+nivo and are active in melanoma brain mets. Ipi+nivo had reduced activity in pts who progressed on BRAFi. Pts with symptomatic brain mets, leptomeningeal mets or previous local therapy responded poorly to nivo alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02374242. [Table: see text]

Five-year overall survival from the anti-PD1 brain collaboration (ABC Study): Randomized phase 2 study of nivolumab (nivo) or nivo+ipilimumab (ipi) in patients (pts) with melanoma brain metastases (mets).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9508-9508
Author(s):  
Georgina V. Long ◽  
Victoria Atkinson ◽  
Serigne Lo ◽  
Alexander David Guminski ◽  
Shahneen Kaur Sandhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Leptomeningeal Disease ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Melanoma Brain Metastases ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Local Brain ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

9508 Background: Preliminary data from the ABC (76 pts) and CheckMate 204 (94 pts) trials showed that nivo and nivo+ipi have activity in active melanoma brain metastases, with durable responses in a subset of pts. Here, we report updated 5-yr data from all pts enrolled on the ABC trial (NCT02374242). Methods: This open-label ph2 trial enrolled 3 cohorts of pts with active melanoma brain mets naïve to anti-PD1/PDL1/PDL2/CTLA4 from Nov 2014-Apr 2017. Pts with asymptomatic brain mets with no prior local brain therapy were randomised to cohort A (nivo 1mg/kg + ipi 3mg/kg, Q3Wx4, then nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) or cohort B (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W). Cohort C (nivo 3mg/kg Q2W) had brain mets i) that failed local therapy, ii) with neuro symptoms and/or iii) with leptomeningeal disease. Prior BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) was allowed. The primary endpoint was best intracranial response (ICR) ≥wk12. Key secondary endpoints were IC PFS, overall PFS, OS, & safety. Results: A total of 76 pts (med f/u 54 mo) were enrolled; median age 59y, 78% male. For cohorts A, B and C: elevated LDH 51%, 58% and 19%; V600BRAF 54%, 56% and 81%; prior BRAFi 23%, 24%, 75%. Efficacy and toxicity are shown in the table. There were no treatment-related deaths. 1/17 deaths in cohort A & 4/16 in cohort B were due to IC progression only. Conclusions: Nivo monotherapy and ipi+nivo are active in melanoma brain mets, with durable responses in the majority of patients who received ipi+nivo upfront. A study of upfront ipi+nivo+/-SRS is underway (NCT03340129). Clinical trial information: NCT02374242. [Table: see text]

Open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase I, dose-dscalation with efficacy tail extension study of vemurafenib in pediatric patients with surgically incurable and unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma harboring BRAFV600 mutations (NCT01519323).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS9104-TPS9104
Author(s):  
Fariba Navid ◽  
Julia C. Chisholm ◽  
Andrea Ferrari ◽  
Cynthia E. Herzog ◽  
Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Stage Iiic ◽  
Unresectable Stage ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Previously Treated

TPS9104 Background: Although rare, melanoma is the most common form of skin cancer in children and the incidence is rising in the adolescent population. Similar to adults, the outcome for pediatric patients with advanced or recurrent melanoma is poor. Many adult studies of melanoma exclude patients under the age of 18 years. Approximately 50% of melanomas carry a mutation in the BRAF gene and the oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (VEM) has demonstrated improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in adult melanoma patients who carry this mutation (Chapman et al; NEJM 2011). The current study is designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended dose (RD), pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of VEM in pediatric patients with surgically incurable and unresectable stage IIIC/IV melanoma harboring BRAFV600mutations. Methods: Patients aged 12 through 17 years with newly diagnosed or previously treated measurable disease are eligible. Patients with radiographically stable, asymptomatic previously treated central nervous system lesions are also eligible. In the dose-escalation phase, patients will be enrolled sequentially to increasing dose cohorts of VEM following a 3+3 design. Dose-limiting toxicity will be assessed during the first cycle (defined as the first 28 days). The initial dose will be 720 mg BID (patients ≥45 kg) or 480 mg BID (patients <45 kg). Once the MTD/RD for the extension phase is defined based on the dose-escalation window, all patients will be eligible to receive the MTD/RD. The efficacy tail of the trial will enroll additional pediatric patients at the MTD/RD. Patients will receive VEM until disease progression, death, unacceptable tolerability, discontinuation from the study, or other protocol-specified criteria. The study aims to treat approximately 20 patients at the RD with 3-15 additional patients treated at other dose levels during the dose-escalation phase. This study is currently open at 18 sites in the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, and Australia. As of January 24, 2013, one patient has been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT01519323.

SPIRITT (study 20060141): A randomized phase II study of FOLFIRI with either panitumumab (pmab) or bevacizumab (bev) as second-line treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 454-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Randolph Hecht ◽  
Allen Lee Cohn ◽  
Shaker R. Dakhil ◽  
Mansoor N. Saleh ◽  
Bilal Piperdi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated

454 Background: Pmab has demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with WT KRAS mCRC as 2nd-line tx in a phase III trial comparing pmab + FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI alone. Here, we describe the results of SPIRITT, a multicenter, randomized phase II study evaluating pmab + FOLFIRI and bev + FOLFIRI in pts with WT KRAS mCRC previously treated with a 1st-line bev + oxaliplatin (Ox)-based chemotherapy regimen. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W or to bev 5.0 or 10.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W. Eligibility criteria included: WT KRAS mCRC, ECOG ≤ 1, no prior irinotecan or anti-EGFR tx, and tx failure of prior 1st-line bev + Ox-based therapy (≥ 4 cycles). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. No formal hypothesis was tested. Results: 182 pts with WT KRAS mCRC were randomized. All pts received tx. Efficacy results are shown (table). Worst grade of 3/4 adverse events (AE) occurred in 78% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 65% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 7% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 7% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Tx discontinuation due to any AE was 29% in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 25% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Conclusions: In this estimation study of pts with WT KRAS mCRC that previously received bev + Ox-based tx, the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.68 - 1.50). The OS HR was 1.06 (95% CI: 0.75 - 1.49). The observed ORR was higher in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm. 54% of bev + FOLFIRI pts received subsequent anti-EGFR tx. The safety profile for both arms was similar to previously reported studies. Tx discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar between the arms. Clinical trial information: NCT00418938. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II trial of sorafenib, capecitabine and oxaliplatin (SECOX) versus single agent sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 365-365
Author(s):  
Thomas Cheung Yau ◽  
Vikki Tang ◽  
Roland Ching-Yu Leung ◽  
Gin Wai Kwok ◽  
Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

365 Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of SECOX regimen with sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in a multicenter, open-label and randomized setting. Methods: Patients not suitable for surgery or various loco-regional therapies and no prior systemic therapy for advanced HCC were recruited in 3 centres. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either SECOX (sorafenib 400 mg BD continuously, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on D1, and capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 on D1-7 q2w) or sorafenib alone continuously in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were tolerability, overall tumor response rate, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Forty-six patients were randomized and treated, of whom 22 were in the SECOX arm. Median age was 64 years and majority of the patients were male (72%). 40 patients (87%) were hepatitis B carrier, and 42 patients (91%) had Child-Pugh A liver function. Thirty patients (65%) had received prior non-systemic treatment for HCC. Median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months (mos) (range 0.3-25.8). At the time of analysis,one patient in the SECOX arm is still receiving treatment. Median TTP was 3.2 mos (95% CI 1.7-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.8 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) for TTP was 0.91 (95% CI 0.5-1.7; p=0.77; predetermined futility boundary HR ≥ 0.86). Median OS was 7.1 mos (95% CI 3.0-15.3) for SECOX vs 12.5 mos (95% CI 7.2-15.4) for sorafenib (p=0.29). Median PFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI 1.6-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.7 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. 2 patients (9%) and no patients achieved partial response in the SECOX and sorafenib arms, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD) was 36% for the SECOX arm and 21% for the sorafenib arm (p=0.50). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) was common in both SECOX and sorafenib arms (64% and 71% respectively, p=0.75). The most common grade 3-4 trAE was ALP increase (14%) for SECOX and hand-foot skin reaction (25%) for sorafenib. Conclusions: The addition of capecitabine and oxaliplatin to sorafenib did not result in significant improvement in TTP. Clinical trial information: NCT02716766.

scholarly journals CLRM-14. OPEN-LABEL, MULTINATIONAL, MULTICENTER, PHASE 3B/4 STUDY OF TRASTUZUMAB DERUXTECAN (T-DXD) IN PATIENTS WITH OR WITHOUT BASELINE BRAIN METASTASIS (BM) WITH PREVIOUSLY TREATED ADVANCED/METASTATIC HUMAN EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2–POSITIVE BREAST CANCER (HER2+ BC): DESTINY-BREAST12

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. iv4-iv4
Author(s):  
Nancy U Lin ◽  
Eva Ciruelos ◽  
Guy Jerusalem ◽  
Volkmar Müller ◽  
Naoki Niikura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Original Presentation ◽  
Previously Treated

Abstract BACKGROUND Despite treatment advances, up to 50% of patients with advanced HER2+ BC develop BM (Zimmer. Cancer Rep. 2020). Patients with HER2+ BC with BM have a worse prognosis than patients without BM. In DESTINY-Breast01, T-DXd demonstrated efficacy in the overall population and preliminary efficacy in a subgroup with stable BM, with a confirmed objective response rate (ORR) of 61.4% and an extracranial confirmed ORR by independent central review (ICR) of 58.3%, median progression-free survival (PFS) of 19.4 and 18.1 mo, and median duration of response (DOR) of 20.8 and 16.9 mo (Modi. Cancer Res. 2021; Jerusalem. Ann Oncol. 2020). Here we describe a trial evaluating T-DXd in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic HER2+ BC ±BM. DESIGN DESTINY-Breast12 (NCT04739761) is an open-label, multicenter, international (86 sites in the US, Europe, Australia, and Japan), phase 3b/4 study assessing T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg q3w efficacy and safety in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic HER2+ BC ±BM that progressed with ≥1 prior anti-HER2–based regimen and received ≤2 lines of therapy in the metastatic setting (excluding patients with prior tucatinib). Patients (n=250/cohort) will be enrolled in cohort 1 (−BM at baseline) or 2 (+BM at baseline). BM must be untreated and not needing immediate local therapy or previously treated and stable or progressing. Primary endpoints are ORR (cohort 1) and PFS (cohort 2) (both by RECIST version 1.1 per ICR). Secondary endpoints are OS, DOR, time to progression, duration of subsequent therapy, PFS2, safety, and changes in symptoms, functioning, and QOL in both cohorts; incidence of new symptomatic CNS metastasis (CNSM) in cohort 1; and ORR and CNS ORR by RECIST 1.1 per ICR, CNS PFS and DOR, and time to new CNSM in cohort 2. This is an encore; the original presentation will be at The European Society for Medical Oncology 2021.

RATIONALE-307: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC in patients aged ≥ 65.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9102-9102
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Shun Lu ◽  
Xinmin Yu ◽  
Yanping Hu ◽  
Yuping Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Lung Cancers ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

9102 Background: Tislelizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody with high affinity and specificity for the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). It has demonstrated antitumor activity in advanced lung cancers. We conducted a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized open-label study (NCT03594747) to assess the safety and efficacy of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced squamous NSCLC. As previously reported, tislelizumab (TIS) significantly improved progression free survival (PFS) and reduced the risk of progression. Here, we report results from a sub-group of pts aged ≥ 65 years. Methods: Eligible pts (aged 18-75 years) enrolled in China were treatment-naive for locally advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. Pts were stratified by disease stage (IIIB vs IV), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (<1% vs 1-49% vs 50% tumor cells), and randomized 1:1:1 to Arm A: TIS 200 mg + paclitaxel (P) 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin (C) area under the plasma concentration 5 (every 3 weeks [Q3W] on day 1); Arm B: TIS + nab-paclitaxel ( nab-P) 100 mg/m2 (Q3W on days 1, 8 and 15) + C (Q3W on Day 1); or Arm C: P + C (Q3W on day 1). P, nab-P and C were administered for 4 to 6 cycles. TIS was administered until loss of benefit, withdrawal of consent or start of a new anticancer therapy. In this sub-group analysis, pts aged ≥ 65 years were evaluated according to the primary endpoint (PFS) and key secondary endpoints (objective response rate and safety). Results: Overall, 127 pts aged ≥ 65 years were randomized to receive treatment. Median age of pts aged ≥ 65 was 68.0 years and 120 pts (94.5%) were male. In total, 18 (46.2%), 20 (38.5%), and 34 (94.4%) pts in Arms A, B and C, respectively, had discontinued treatment. In Arm C 22/34 pts had completed chemotherapy. The primary and secondary endpoints, PFS and ORR, were longer and higher, respectively, in Arms A and B, compared with Arm C (Table). Grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 33 (84.6%), 44 (84.6%) and 28 (82.4%) pts aged ≥ 65 years in Arms A, B and C, respectively, compared with 103 (85.8%), 99 (83.9%) and 94 (80.3%) pts aged ≥ 18 years enrolled in the study. The most commonly reported TRAEs in pts aged ≥ 65 years were anemia, decrease in neutrophil count, and alopecia. Conclusions: In this sub-group analysis, PFS and ORR were longer and higher, respectively, with TIS in pts aged ≥ 65 years with advanced squamous NSCLC. The safety profile of TIS in pts aged ≥ 65 years was similar to the safety profile for all aged pts aged ≥ 18 years. Clinical trial information: NCT03594747. [Table: see text]

SPIRITT (study 20060141): A randomized phase II study of FOLFIRI with either panitumumab (pmab) or bevacizumab (bev) as second-line treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3616-3616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Lee Cohn ◽  
J. Randolph Hecht ◽  
Shaker Dakhil ◽  
Mansoor N. Saleh ◽  
Bilal Piperdi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated

3616 Background: Pmab has demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with WT KRAS mCRC as 2nd-line tx in a phase III trial comparing pmab + FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI alone. Here, we describe the results of SPIRITT, a multicenter, randomized phase II study evaluating pmab + FOLFIRI and bev + FOLFIRI in pts with WT KRAS mCRC previously treated with a 1st-line bev + oxaliplatin (Ox)-based chemotherapy regimen. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W or to bev 5.0 or 10.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W. Eligibility criteria included: WT KRAS mCRC, ECOG ≤ 1, no prior irinotecan or anti-EGFR tx, and tx failure of prior 1st-line bev + Ox-based therapy (≥ 4 cycles). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. No formal hypothesis was tested. Results: 182 pts with WT KRAS mCRC were randomized. All pts received tx. Efficacy results are shown (Table). Worst grade of 3/4 adverse events (AE) occurred in 78% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 65% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 7% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 7% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Tx discontinuation due to any AE was 29% in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 25% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Conclusions: In this estimation study of pts with WT KRAS mCRC that previously received bev + Ox-based tx, the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.68 - 1.50). The OS HR was 1.06 (95% CI: 0.75 - 1.49). The observed ORR was higher in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm. 54% of bev + FOLFIRI pts received subsequent anti-EGFR tx. The safety profile for both arms was similar to previously reported studies. Tx discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar between the arms. Clinical trial information: NCT00418938. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II trial of sorafenib, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin (SECOX) versus single agent sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15630-e15630
Author(s):  
Gin Wai Kwok ◽  
Vikki Tang ◽  
Roland Ching-Yu Leung ◽  
Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
Ada Law ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

e15630 Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of SECOX regimen with sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in a multicenter, open-label and randomized setting. Methods: Patients not suitable for surgery or various loco-regional therapies and no prior systemic therapy for advanced HCC were recruited in 3 centres. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either SECOX (sorafenib 400 mg BD continuously, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on D1, and capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 on D1-7 q2w) or sorafenib alone continuously in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were tolerability, overall tumor response rate, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Forty-six patients were randomized and treated, of whom 22 were in the SECOX arm. Median age was 64 years and majority of the patients were male (72%). 40 patients (87%) were hepatitis B carrier, and 42 patients (91%) had Child-Pugh A liver function. Thirty patients (65%) had received prior non-systemic treatment for HCC. Median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months (mos) (range 0.3-25.8). At the time of analysis,one patient in the SECOX arm is still receiving treatment. Median TTP was 3.2 mos (95% CI 1.7-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.8 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) for TTP was 0.91 (95% CI 0.5-1.7; p = 0.77; predetermined futility boundary HR ≥ 0.86). Median OS was 7.1 mos (95% CI 3.0-15.3) for SECOX vs 12.5 mos (95% CI 7.2-15.4) for sorafenib (p = 0.29). Median PFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI 1.6-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.7 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. 2 patients (9%) and no patients achieved partial response in the SECOX and sorafenib arms, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD) was 36% for the SECOX arm and 21% for the sorafenib arm (p = 0.50). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) was common in both SECOX and sorafenib arms (64% and 71% respectively, p = 0.75). The most common grade 3-4 trAE was ALP increase (14%) for SECOX and hand-foot skin reaction (25%) for sorafenib. Conclusions: The addition of capecitabine and oxaliplatin to sorafenib did not result in significant improvement in TTP. Clinical trial information: NCT02716766.

scholarly journals Phase II Study of the MEK1/MEK2 Inhibitor Trametinib in Patients With Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Cutaneous Melanoma Previously Treated With or Without a BRAF Inhibitor

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 482-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin B. Kim ◽  
Richard Kefford ◽  
Anna C. Pavlick ◽  
Jeffrey R. Infante ◽  
Antoni Ribas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sequential Therapy ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Braf Mutant

Purpose BRAF mutations promote melanoma cell proliferation and survival primarily through activation of MEK. The purpose of this study was to determine the response rate (RR) for the selective, allosteric MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor trametinib (GSK1120212), in patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma. Patients and Methods This was an open-label, two-stage, phase II study with two cohorts. Patients with metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor (cohort A) or treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy (BRAF-inhibitor naive; cohort B) were enrolled. Patients received 2 mg of trametinib orally once daily. Results In cohort A (n = 40), there were no confirmed objective responses and 11 patients (28%) with stable disease (SD); the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.8 months. In cohort B (n = 57), there was one (2%) complete response, 13 (23%) partial responses (PRs), and 29 patients (51%) with SD (confirmed RR, 25%); the median PFS was 4.0 months. One patient each with BRAF K601E and BRAF V600R had prolonged PR. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events for all patients were skin-related toxicity, nausea, peripheral edema, diarrhea, pruritis, and fatigue. No cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma was observed. Conclusion Trametinib was well tolerated. Significant clinical activity was observed in BRAF-inhibitor–naive patients previously treated with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. Minimal clinical activity was observed as sequential therapy in patients previously treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Together, these data suggest that BRAF-inhibitor resistance mechanisms likely confer resistance to MEK-inhibitor monotherapy. These data support further evaluation of trametinib in BRAF-inhibitor–naive BRAF-mutant melanoma, including rarer forms of BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Primary results of the global phase III ALEX study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA9008-LBA9008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Tsang Shaw ◽  
Solange Peters ◽  
Tony Mok ◽  
Shirish M. Gadgeel ◽  
Jin Seok Ahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA9008 Background: Alectinib, a TKI targeting ALK, has shown robust efficacy in crizotinib-naïve/resistant ALK+ NSCLC. J-ALEX showed superiority of alectinib 300mg BID vs crizotinib in Japanese pts with crizotinib-naïve ALK+ NSCLC (progression-free survival [PFS] HR 0.34, p<0.0001). We report primary results from the ALEX study of first-line alectinib 600mg BID vs crizotinib in advanced ALK+ NSCLC (NCT02075840). Methods: This open-label randomized multicenter phase III study enrolled pts with stage IIIB/IV ALK+ NSCLC, determined by central IHC testing. Eligible pts had ECOG PS 0–2 and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. Pts with asymptomatic CNS metastases were allowed. Pts (n=303) were randomized 1:1 to receive alectinib 600mg or crizotinib 250mg BID. Primary endpoint: Investigator (Inv)-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1), with systematic CNS imaging in all pts. Secondary endpoints included independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS, IRC-assessed time to CNS progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: At the primary data cut-off (9 Feb 2017), alectinib demonstrated statistically significant superiority vs crizotinib, reducing risk of progression/death by 53% (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.65, p<0.0001); alectinib median PFS was not reached (95% CI 17.7–NE) vs crizotinib 11.1 months (95% CI 9.1–13.1). Key secondary endpoints showed superiority for alectinib vs crizotinib, respectively: IRC PFS, HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.36–0.70; p<0.0001); median PFS 25.7 months (95% CI 19.9–NE) vs 10.4 months (95% CI 7.7–14.6); CNS TTP, cause-specific HR of CNS progression 0.16 (95% CI 0.10–0.28; p<0.0001); ORR (Inv) 83% (95% CI 76–89) vs 76% (95% CI 68–82), p=0.09; OS, based on 25% events, HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.48–1.20; p=0.24). Grade 3/4 AEs were less frequent with alectinib, 41%, vs 50% with crizotinib; fatal AEs occurred in 3% vs 5%, respectively. Rates of AEs leading to discontinuation, dose reduction and interruption were lower with alectinib. Conclusions: Alectinib showed superior efficacy and favorable tolerability compared with crizotinib. ALEX results support alectinib as a new standard of care for treatment-naïve ALK+ NSCLC. Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Clinical trial information: NCT02075840.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document