Randomized phase III trial of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of the CORRECT Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In the international, phase III, randomized, double-blind CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that had progressed on all standard therapies. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations in the CORRECT trial.Methods
Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo for weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was OS. Outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics.Results
One hundred Japanese and 660 non-Japanese patients were randomized to regorafenib (n = 67 and n = 438) or placebo (n = 33 and n = 222). Regorafenib had a consistent OS benefit in the Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations, with hazard ratios of 0.81 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.51) and 0.77 (95 % CI 0.62-0.94), respectively. Regorafenib-associated hand-foot skin reaction, hypertension, proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, and lipase elevations occurred more frequently in the Japanese subpopulation than in the non-Japanese subpopulation, but were generally manageable.Conclusion
Regorafenib appears to have comparable efficacy in Japanese and non-Japanese subpopulations, with a manageable adverse-event profile, suggesting that this agent could potentially become a standard of care in patients with mCRC.
SUBMITTER: Yoshino T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4434855 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor regorafenib provides a survival benefit in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Antiangiogenic therapy causes hypoxic stress within tumor cells, which activates autophagy as a survival mechanism. The histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDAC) entinostat increases dependence on autophagy through epigenetic mechanisms. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) blocks autophagy by blunting lysosomal acidification. We hypothesized that HCQ and entinostat would be tolerable with regorafenib and potentiate the antitumor response.MethodsThis was a 3+3 phase I trial of HCQ and entinostat with regorafenib in patients with metastatic CRC. The primary objective was safety, and the secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsTwenty patients received study therapy. Six evaluable patients were enrolled at each of the three planned dose levels, one patient at an intermediate dose level, and one additional patient withdrew consent after 4 days to receive treatment closer to home. One dose-limiting toxicity was noted in the study at dose level 2 (grade 3 fatigue). Seven patients discontinued therapy due to related toxicities; rapid weight loss was near universal, with a median weight loss of 4.4 kg (range 1.5-12.2 kg) in the first 2 weeks of treatment. No objective responses were observed.ConclusionThe combination of regorafenib, HCQ, and entinostat was poorly tolerated without evident activity in metastatic CRC.Clinicaltrials.gov identifierNCT03215264.
| S-EPMC9438902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC.MethodsIn this two-part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild-type (and no contraindication), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open-label, safety run-in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double-blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C-reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsThe study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression-free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725-1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724-1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478-1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576-1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified.ConclusionsAlthough addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.
| S-EPMC6246927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSARC024 is a phase II clinical trial of the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in specific sarcoma subtypes, including advanced osteosarcoma. We hypothesized that regorafenib would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with sarcoma and report the results of the osteosarcoma cohort.Patients and methodsThis trial enrolled patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma with measurable disease by RECIST who had received at least one prior line of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to regorafenib or placebo. Crossover was allowed at time of disease progression. PFS was the primary end point of the study, which was powered to detect a difference of at least 3 months in median PFS.ResultsForty-two patients from 12 centers were enrolled between September 2014 and May 2018. Median age was 37 years (range, 18 to 76 years). Patients had received an average of 2.3 prior therapy regimens. Ten patients receiving placebo crossed over to active drug at time of progression. Study enrollment was stopped early, after a data safety monitoring committee review. Median PFS was significantly improved with regorafenib versus placebo: 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.0 to 7.6 months) versus 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8 months), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.85; P = .017). In the context of the crossover design, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival. Fourteen (64%) of 22 patients initially randomly assigned to regorafenib experienced grade 3 to 4 events attributed to treatment, including one grade 4 colonic perforation.ConclusionThe study met its primary end point, demonstrating activity of regorafenib in patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma. No new safety signals were observed. Regorafenib should be considered a treatment option for patients with relapsed metastatic osteosarcoma.
| S-EPMC7799443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:At present, there is no set strategy for the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer subsequent to the failure of standard treatment, other than the use of regorafenib (RGR) and TAS-102. The best order in which to use these drugs, and their safety and efficacy in combination with other drugs, are currently under investigation. It has been reported that RGR has a resensitizing effect on tumors that have previously failed to respond to anticancer drugs; this makes it a promising salvage therapy for colorectal cancer. The present report describes the results of a retrospective study on 17 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received RGR treatment following the failure of standard therapy. Following RGR failure, 71% of the patients were fit for further anticancer treatment, and these patients survived longer than those who did not receive further treatment. Furthermore, this intervention did not shorten the period of best supportive care. As a considerable number patients were fit for further anticancer therapy after RGR treatment, which resulted in prolonged survival without shortening the period of best supportive care, it may be beneficial for future research to focus on finding the optimal time at which to switch from RGR to further anticancer therapy.
| S-EPMC5532698 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and aimIn the phase 3 CONCUR trial (NCT01584830), regorafenib improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo in Asian patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a post hoc subgroup analysis of Chinese patients in CONCUR.MethodsAdults with mCRC progressing despite at least two prior treatment regimens and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. Dose modifications were permitted. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, objective overall response, disease control rate, and safety.ResultsA total of 172 Chinese patients were randomized and treated (regorafenib n = 112, placebo n = 60). OS was significantly improved with regorafenib versus placebo (8.4 vs 6.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.80; one-sided P = 0.000632), as was progression-free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.47; one-sided P < 0.000001). The most common drug-related grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; regorafenib, placebo) were hand-foot skin reaction (19%, 0%), hypertension (13%, 3%), hypophosphatemia (7%, 0%), increased alanine aminotransferase (6%, 0%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (5%, 0%). In patients receiving regorafenib and placebo, respectively, TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 14% and 7%, dose reduction in 39% and 0%, and dose interruption in 64% and 20%.ConclusionsThis retrospective analysis showed that regorafenib provided an OS benefit over placebo for Chinese patients with previously treated mCRC. TEAEs were consistent with the regorafenib safety profile and manageable with treatment modifications.
| S-EPMC7497105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were limited. Anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. ALTER0703 study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of anlotinib for patients with refractory mCRC.Materials and methodsThis was a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial involving 33 hospitals in China. Patients had taken at least two lines of therapies were 2:1 randomized to receive oral anlotinib (12 mg/day; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Randomization was stratified by previous VEGF-targeting treatments and time from diagnosis to metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and safety.ResultsA total of 419 patients (anlotinib: 282; placebo: 137) were treated from December 2014 to August 2016. The median PFS was improved in anlotinib group (4.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.5) over placebo group (1.5 months; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43; p < .0001). However, median OS was similar between two groups (8.6 months; 95% CI, 7.8-9.7 vs. 7.2 months; 95% CI, 6.2-8.8; HR, 1.02; p = .870). Improvements of ORR and DCR were observed in anlotinib over placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 anlotinib related adverse events were hypertension (20.92%), increased γ-GT (7.09%), and hand-foot skin reaction (6.38%).ConclusionAnlotinib was tolerated in Chinese patients with refractory mCRC. Although OS did not reach significant difference, anlotinib still provided clinical benefits by substantially prolonged PFS in these patients.Implications for practiceIn this randomized clinical trial that included 419 patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantial prolonged in progression-free survival was noted in patients who received anlotinib compared with those given placebo. Improvements on objective response rate and disease control rate was also observed in anlotinib group. However, overall survival was similar between the two groups. In a word, in third-line or above treatment of Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, anlotinib provided clinical benefit by significantly prolonged progression-free survival.
| S-EPMC8488800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of RA. We compared tofacitinib modified-release (MR) 11 mg once daily (QD) with tofacitinib immediate-release (IR) 5 mg twice daily (BID) in Japanese patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Methods:Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 12-week study. Patients were randomized to tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD (n = 104) or IR 5 mg BID (n = 105), with stable MTX. Compliance was based on returned pill counts. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-4(CRP) at week 12 was <0.6. Results:At week 12, with tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID, respectively, the change from baseline in least squares mean DAS28-4(CRP) was -2.43 and -2.85; the mean difference was 0.43 (95% CI 0.17, 0.69). Non-inferiority of MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was not met. Improvement of DAS28-4(CRP) ?1.2 was observed in 89 and 85% of patients, respectively, corresponding to a clinically important, significant change in both groups. The frequency of adverse events (52.9 and 51.4%, respectively) and serious adverse events (4.8 and 3.8%, respectively) was generally similar between treatments. No deaths were reported. Conclusion:Non-inferiority of MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was not met in this study. However, clinically meaningful improvements in RA were observed with both tofacitinib formulations in Japanese patients. The safety profile was similar with both formulations. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02281552.
| S-EPMC6293484 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough biomarkers for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer exist, the benefit patients with RAS mutated tumors derive from established regimens is unclear.MethodsEfficacy of therapeutic strategies available for RAS mutated patients (addition of chemotherapeutic agents and/or anti angiogenic agents) were investigated in fourteen randomized controlled phase III trials at trial level by meta-analysing individual study hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).Results6810 of 10,748 patients (63.3%) were available (48.5% RAS wildtype, 51.5% RAS mutated). Across all treatment lines, additional treatment efficacy (chemotherapy and/or anti angiogenic agents) was significantly smaller in RAS mutated compared to wildtype tumors for OS and PFS. In detail, patients with RAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer derived significant benefit in PFS but not in OS by the addition of either chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agents to the respective comparator. In patients with RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, PFS and OS were improved by the addition of chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agent.ConclusionThe therapeutic benefit of additional substances is less distinct in patients with RAS mutated as compared to RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, especially with regard to OS.
| S-EPMC7324435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past 20?years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician-patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.
| S-EPMC7607787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active.FindingsBetween June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction).InterpretationThe dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data.FundingBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
| S-EPMC9187307 | biostudies-literature