Dataset Information

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

ABSTRACT: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer.Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ? 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected]The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs.The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Robert NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4617186 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

Robert Nicholas J NJ Saleh Mansoor N MN Paul Devchand D Generali Daniele D Gressot Laurent L Copur Mehmet S MS Brufsky Adam M AM Minton Susan E SE Giguere Jeffrey K JK Smith John W JW Richards Paul D PD Gernhardt Diana D Huang Xin X Liau Katherine F KF Kern Kenneth A KA Davis John J

Clinical breast cancer 20110411 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ≥ 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I. ...[more]

PMID: 21569994

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms.ConclusionsPem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Project description:BackgroundCombination therapy with oral fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan has not yet been established as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We carried out a randomized, open-label, phase III trial to determine whether S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsPatients from 53 institutions who had previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; a 3-week regimen: intravenous infusions of irinotecan 150?mg/m2 and bevacizumab 7.5?mg/kg on day 1, oral S-1 80?mg/m2 twice daily for 2?weeks, followed by a 1-week rest; or a 4-week regimen: irinotecan 100?mg/m2 and bevacizumab 5?mg/kg on days 1 and 15, S-1 80?mg/m2 twice daily for 2?weeks, followed by a 2-week rest). The primary end point was PFS. The noninferiority margin was 1.25; noninferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) of the control group versus the experimental group was less than this margin.ResultBetween June 2012 and September 2014, 487 patients underwent randomization. Two hundred and forty-three patients assigned to the control group and 241 assigned to the experimental group were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 10.8?months (95% CI 9.6-11.6) in the control group and 14.0?months (95% CI 12.4-15.5) in the experimental group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.02; P?<?0.0001 for noninferiority, P?=?0.0815 for superiority). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (64.9%) in the control group and 140 (58.6%) in the experimental group had adverse events of grade 3 or higher.ConclusionS-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment of mCRC and could be a new standard treatment.Clinical trials numberUMIN000007834.

Project description:BackgroundIn the primary analysis of CheckMate 9ER, nivolumab plus cabozantinib showed superior progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (median follow-up of 18·1 months). Here, we report extended follow-up of overall survival and updated efficacy and safety.MethodsThis open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was done in 125 hospitals and cancer centres across 18 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by the investigator, any International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) prognostic risk category, and available tumour tissue for PD-L1 testing. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib (40 mg) orally once daily or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily (4 weeks per 6-week cycle). Randomisation, stratified by IMDC risk status, tumour PD-L1 expression, and geographical region, was done by permuted block within each stratum using a block size of four, via an interactive response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint (reported here as the preplanned final analysis according to the protocol). Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This ongoing study, closed to recruitment, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177.FindingsBetween Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 328 to the sunitinib group. With an extended follow-up (data cutoff of June 24, 2021; median 32·9 months [IQR 30·4-35·9]), median overall survival was 37·7 months (95% CI 35·5-not estimable) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 34·3 months (29·0-not estimable) in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·55-0·90], p=0·0043) and updated median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (12·8-19·8) versus 8·3 months (7·0-9·7; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·46-0·68], p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 208 (65%) of 320 patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus 172 (54%) of 320 with sunitinib. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (40 [13%] of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 39 [12%] of 320 in the sunitinib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (25 [8%] vs 26 [8%]), and diarrhoea (22 [7%] vs 15 [5%]). Grade 3-4 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 70 (22%) of 320 patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 31 (10%) of 320 in the cabozantinib group. One additional treatment-related death occurred with sunitinib (sudden death).InterpretationWith extended follow-up and preplanned final overall survival analysis per protocol, nivolumab plus cabozantinib demonstrated improved efficacy versus sunitinib, further supporting the combination in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.FundingBristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Project description:BackgroundLipusu is the first commercialized liposomal formulation of paclitaxel and has demonstrated promising efficacy against locally advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) in a small-scale study. Here, we conducted a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of cisplatin plus Lipusu (LP) versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP) as first-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic LSCC.MethodsPatients enrolled were aged between 18 to 75 years, had locally advanced (clinical stage IIIB, ineligible for concurrent chemoradiation or surgery) or metastatic (Stage IV) LSCC, had no previous systemic chemotherapy and at least one measurable lesion as per the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1) before administration of the trial drug. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles. To explore the possible predictive value of plasma cytokines for LP treatment, plasma samples were collected from the LP group at baseline and first efficacy evaluation time and were then subjected to analysis by 45-Plex ProcartaPlex Panel 1 to detect the presence of 45 cytokines using the Luminex xMAP technology. The correlation between treatment outcomes and dynamic changes in the levels of cytokines were evaluated in preliminary analyses.ResultsThe median duration of follow-up was 15.4 months. 237 patients in the LP group and 253 patients in the GP group were included in the per protocol set (PPS). In the PPS, the median PFS was 5.2 months versus 5.5 months in the LP and GP group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, P = 0.742) respectively. The median OS was 14.6 months versus 12.5 months in the LP and GP group (HR: 0.83, P = 0.215). The ORR (41.8% versus 45.9%, P = 0.412) and DCR (90.3% versus 88.1%, P = 0.443) were also similar between the LP and GP group. A significantly lower proportion of patients in the LP group experienced adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment interruptions (10.9% versus 26.4%, P < 0.001) or treatment termination (14.3% versus 23.1%, P = 0.011). The analysis of cytokine levels in the LP group showed that low baseline levels of 27 cytokines were associated with an increased ORR, and 15 cytokines were associated with improved PFS, with 14 cytokines, including TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-6, and IL-8, demonstrating an overlapping trend.ConclusionThe LP regimen demonstrated similar PFS, OS, ORR and DCR as the GP regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic LSCC but had more favorable toxicity profiles. The study also identified a spectrum of different cytokines that could be potentially associated with the clinical benefit in patients who received the LP regimen.

Project description:PurposeIntravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) is complicated by neuropathy and requires premedication to prevent hypersensitivity-type reactions. Paclitaxel is poorly absorbed orally; encequidar (E), a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, allows oral absorption.MethodsA phase III open-label study comparing oral paclitaxel plus E (oPac + E) 205 mg/m2 paclitaxel plus 15 mg E methanesulfonate monohydrate 3 consecutive days per week versus IVpac 175 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks was performed. Women with metastatic breast cancer and adequate organ function, at least 1 year from last taxane, were randomly assigned 2:1 to oPac + E versus IVpac. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic response using RECIST 1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsFour hundred two patients from Latin America were enrolled (265 oPac + E, 137 IVpac); demographics and prior therapies were balanced. The confirmed response (intent-to-treat) was 36% for oPac + E versus 23% for IVpac (P = .01). The PFS was 8.4 versus 7.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.768; 95.5% CI, 0.584 to 1.01; P = .046), and the OS was 22.7 versus 16.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.794; 95.5% CI, 0.607 to 1.037; P = .08). Grade 3-4 adverse reactions were 55% with oPac + E and 53% with IVpac. oPac + E had lower incidence and severity of neuropathy (2% v 15% > grade 2) and alopecia (49% v 62% all grades) than IVpac but more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and neutropenic complications, particularly in patients with elevated liver enzymes. On-study deaths (8% oPac + E v 9% IVpac) were treatment-related in 3% and 0%, respectively.ConclusionoPac + E increased the confirmed tumor response versus IVpac, with trends in PFS and OS. Neuropathy was less frequent and severe with oPac + E; neutropenic serious infections were increased. Elevated liver enzymes at baseline predispose oPac + E patients to early neutropenia and serious infections (funded by Athenex, Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02594371).

Project description:ObjectiveDespite advances in cervical cancer prevention and diagnosis, outcomes for patients given a diagnosis of advanced and recurrent disease are poor. In the GOG240 trial, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin has been shown to prolong survival compared with paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic disease. However, standards of care vary between regions and countries. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to enable a comparison between bevacizumab + chemotherapy with multiple monotherapy or combination chemotherapy regimens in the treatment for women with advanced, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer.Methods/materialsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer published in English from 1999 to 2015. A feasibility study was performed to assess the heterogeneity of the trials, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted to calculate the hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) for all pairwise comparisons and ranking of all interventions.ResultsTwenty-three studies (19 trials) met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Sample sizes ranged from 69 to 452, and median patient age ranged from 45 to 53 years. There was a trend toward prolonged OS with cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab compared with all non-bevacizumab-containing therapies. Cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab had the highest probability of being the most efficacious compared with all regimens (68.1%), and cisplatin monotherapy had the lowest (0%).ConclusionsThe results of this network meta-analysis show that bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin is likely to prolong OS over other non-bevacizumab-containing chemotherapies (eg, paclitaxel-carboplatin), which were not included in the GOG240 trial. In patients with advanced, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer, cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab showed the highest efficacy in all regimens investigated in this analysis.

Dataset Information

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

Publications

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets