Dataset Information

Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the mitogen-activated protein (MAP)/extracellular signal-regulated (ERK) kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor selumetinib versus temozolomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma.This phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study examined the effect of 100 mg oral selumetinib twice daily in 28-day cycles versus oral temozolomide (200 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days, then 23 days off-treatment). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival.Two hundred patients were randomized. Progression-free survival did not differ significantly between selumetinib and temozolomide (median time to event 78 and 80 days, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.07; 80% confidence interval, 0.86-1.32). Objective response was observed in six (5.8%) patients receiving selumetinib and nine (9.4%) patients in the temozolomide group. Among patients with BRAF mutations, objective responses were similar between selumetinib and temozolomide groups (11.1% and 10.7%, respectively). However, five of the six selumetinib partial responders were BRAF mutated. Frequently reported adverse events with selumetinib were dermatitis acneiform (papular pustular rash; 59.6%), diarrhea (56.6%), nausea (50.5%), and peripheral edema (40.4%), whereas nausea (64.2%), constipation (47.4%), and vomiting (44.2%) were reported with temozolomide.No significant difference in progression-free survival was observed between patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma unselected for BRAF/NRAS mutations, who received therapy with selumetinib or temozolomide. Five of six patients with partial response to selumetinib had BRAF mutant tumors.

SUBMITTER: Kirkwood JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3549298 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

Kirkwood John M JM Bastholt Lars L Robert Caroline C Sosman Jeff J Larkin James J Hersey Peter P Middleton Mark M Cantarini Mireille M Zazulina Victoria V Kemsley Karin K Dummer Reinhard R

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20111102 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the mitogen-activated protein (MAP)/extracellular signal-regulated (ERK) kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor selumetinib versus temozolomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III/IV melanoma.<h4>Experimental design</h4>This phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study examined the effect of 100 mg oral selumetinib twice daily in 28-day cycles versus oral temozolomide (200 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days, then 23 ...[more]

PMID: 22048237

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Monoclonal antibodies targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) (e.g., ipilimumab [IPI]) and the programmed cell death-1 (PD1) receptor (e.g., nivolumab [NIVO]) represent significant breakthroughs in the treatment of advanced melanoma. A combination of the 2 agents has demonstrated efficacy and survival benefits over NIVO or IPI monotherapy in treating advanced melanoma. We compared melanoma-specific costs following treatment with NIVO?+?IPI, NIVO monotherapy, or IPI monotherapy from the UK and German perspectives to ascertain whether these clinical benefits resulted in a cost advantage. Methods:Patient-level resource utilization data for the three treatment cohorts were obtained from the CheckMate 067 trial (NCT01844505). All melanoma-specific resources, including drugs (index, concomitant and subsequent melanoma medications), office visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab tests, procedures and surgeries, utilized over a 48-month evaluation period after start of index treatment were included. Unit costs specific to each geography were applied from external sources. Mean costs per surviving patients were calculated for each successive 30-day period from treatment start and aggregated over the evaluation period. Results:The total per-patient costs incurred by advanced melanoma patients over the 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO?+?IPI were 9% lower than NIVO monotherapy (£226k vs £248k) and 3% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (£226k vs. £233k) in the UK. In Germany, the total costs incurred by NIVO?+?IPI cohort were 5% lower than NIVO monotherapy (€258k vs €271k) and 4% lower compared to IPI monotherapy (€258k vs. €268k). Drug costs accounted for >?85% of total costs. Non-drug costs were slightly higher for NIVO?+?IPI and IPI monotherapy because of higher hospitalization rates. Costs incurred on subsequent drugs post progression were about 45% and 65% lower in NIVO?+?IPI cohort compared with NIVO and IPI monotherapy cohorts respectively. Conclusions:The total costs incurred by a patient over a 48-month period following treatment initiation with NIVO?+?IPI are lower when compared with patients initiating monotherapies; further, the cost advantage is seen to be increasing over time. The clinical benefits offered by the regimen are thus supplemented by a cost advantage, as patients receiving either monotherapy treatment experience faster progression and, consequently, higher subsequent treatment costs. (Note: The cost results reported here are specific to the UK, and Germany, and may not be generalizable to other geographies).

Project description:PurposeThis randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated.ResultsIn 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-1.36, P=0.196); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression (P=0.02) in the overall population.ConclusionsHRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Project description:Background/Aim:Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF-B) in spontaneous reactivation of chronic hepatitis B (SR-CHB) has high mortality. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) improves survival by ~40% in ACLF-B but is potentially nephrotoxic. Combining telbivudine (LDT) with TDF may negate this risk and could boost rapid viral clearance and improve clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods:Seventy consecutive patients with SR-CHB were randomized to TDF (300 mg/day, n = 35) or TDF plus LDT (600 mg/day; n = 35). In all, 25 had ACLF-B and none had option for liver transplantation. Primary endpoint was survival at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were survival at 3 months in ACLF-B, serial reduction in hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss and liver-related complications. Results:Overall baseline clinical and laboratory parameters in the two groups were comparable. Reduction in HBV DNA at weeks 2, 4 and 12 was independent of treatment groups and presence of ACLF-B (P < 0.01). All six patients with HBsAg loss at 12 weeks had lower HBV DNA at baseline and none had ACLF-B. Patients with no ACLF-B had more rapid decline in bilirubin and alanine aminotraminase at week 2 compared with ACLF-B. Patients on TDF plus LDT showed significant improvement in AKI on follow-up (five of six patients) compared with TDF monotherapy (none of six patients) and had less reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate at week 12. Eight of 10 patients with liver-related deaths received TDF monotherapy (P = 0.02). New-onset septic shock, TDF monotherapy, e-antibody positivity, and higher baseline model for end-stage liver disease score were predictors of mortality in ACLF-B. None had treatment-related severe adverse effects. Conclusion:Addition of LDT to tenofovir is safe and may be renoprotective in spontaneous reactivation of hepatitis B. Combination therapy improves survival in ACLF-B despite comparable HBV DNA suppression to tenofovir monotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundStandard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) uses a combination of drugs deemed essential to minimise treatment failure and drug resistance. Protease inhibitors are potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance, and have potential use as monotherapy after viral load suppression is achieved with combination treatment. We aimed to assess clinical risks and benefits of protease inhibitor monotherapy in long-term clinical use: in particular, the effect on drug resistance and future treatment options.MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) positive for HIV attending 43 public sector treatment centres in the UK who had suppressed viral load (<50 copies per mL) for at least 24 weeks on combination ART with no change in the previous 12 weeks and a CD4 count of more than 100 cells per μL. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or to switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI-mono); we recommended ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted darunavir (800 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to combination treatment if viral load rebounded. All treatments were oral. Randomisation was with permuted blocks of varying size and stratified by centre and baseline ART; we used a computer-generated, sequentially numbered randomisation list. The primary outcome was loss of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-level or high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was deemed sensitive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%). We estimated probability of rebound and resistance with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN04857074.FindingsBetween Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010, we randomly allocated 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296). At 3 years, one or more future drug options had been lost in two participants (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·7%) in the OT group and six (2·1%) in the PI-mono group: difference 1·4% (-0·4 to 3·4); non-inferiority shown. 49 (16·8%) participants in the OT group and 65 (22·0%) in the PI-mono group had grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events (difference 5·1% [95% CI -1·3 to 11·5]; p=0·12); 45 (six treatment related) and 56 (three treatment related) had serious adverse events.InterpretationProtease inhibitor monotherapy, with regular viral load monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment for rebound, preserved future treatment options and did not change overall clinical outcomes or frequency of toxic effects. Protease inhibitor monotherapy is an acceptable alternative for long-term clinical management of HIV infection.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

Publications

Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets