Dataset Information

Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

ABSTRACT: In phase I/II trials, the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-blocking monoclonal antibody tremelimumab induced durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced melanoma. This phase III study evaluated overall survival (OS) and other safety and efficacy end points in patients with advanced melanoma treated with tremelimumab or standard-of-care chemotherapy.Patients with treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to tremelimumab (15 mg/kg once every 90 days) or physician's choice of standard-of-care chemotherapy (temozolomide or dacarbazine).In all, 655 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. The test statistic crossed the prespecified futility boundary at second interim analysis after 340 deaths, but survival follow-up continued. At final analysis with 534 events, median OS by intent to treat was 12.6 months (95% CI, 10.8 to 14.3) for tremelimumab and 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.36 to 11.96) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.88; P = .127). Objective response rates were similar in the two arms: 10.7% in the tremelimumab arm and 9.8% in the chemotherapy arm. However, response duration (measured from date of random assignment) was significantly longer after tremelimumab (35.8 v 13.7 months; P = .0011). Diarrhea, pruritus, and rash were the most common treatment-related adverse events in the tremelimumab arm; 7.4% had endocrine toxicities. Seven deaths in the tremelimumab arm and one in the chemotherapy arm were considered treatment related by either investigators or sponsor.This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant survival advantage of treatment with tremelimumab over standard-of-care chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.

SUBMITTER: Ribas A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4878048 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

Ribas Antoni A Kefford Richard R Marshall Margaret A MA Punt Cornelis J A CJ Haanen John B JB Marmol Maribel M Garbe Claus C Gogas Helen H Schachter Jacob J Linette Gerald G Lorigan Paul P Kendra Kari L KL Maio Michele M Trefzer Uwe U Smylie Michael M McArthur Grant A GA Dreno Brigitte B Nathan Paul D PD Mackiewicz Jacek J Kirkwood John M JM Gomez-Navarro Jesus J Huang Bo B Pavlov Dmitri D Hauschild Axel A

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20130107 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>In phase I/II trials, the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-blocking monoclonal antibody tremelimumab induced durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced melanoma. This phase III study evaluated overall survival (OS) and other safety and efficacy end points in patients with advanced melanoma treated with tremelimumab or standard-of-care chemotherapy.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Patients with treatment-naive, unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma were random ...[more]

PMID: 23295794

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose Until recently, limited options existed for patients with advanced melanoma who experienced disease progression while receiving treatment with ipilimumab. Here, we report the coprimary overall survival (OS) end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown that nivolumab resulted in more patients achieving an objective response compared with chemotherapy regimens in ipilimumab-refractory patients with advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 expression, BRAF status, and best prior cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 therapy response, then randomly assigned 2:1 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or carboplatin area under the curve 6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). Patients were treated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2 years. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab (99% treated) and 133 to ICC (77% treated). More nivolumab-treated patients had brain metastases (20% v 14%) and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels (52% v 38%) at baseline; 41% of patients treated with ICC versus 11% of patients treated with nivolumab received anti-programmed death 1 agents after randomly assigned therapy. Median OS was 16 months for nivolumab versus 14 months for ICC (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95.54% CI, 0.73 to 1.24); median progression-free survival was 3.1 months versus 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95.1% CI, 0.78 to 1.436). Overall response rate (27% v 10%) and median duration of response (32 months v 13 months) were notably higher for nivolumab versus ICC. Fewer grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in patients on nivolumab (14% v 34%). Conclusion Nivolumab demonstrated higher, more durable responses but no difference in survival compared with ICC. OS should be interpreted with caution as it was likely impacted by an increased dropout rate before treatment, which led to crossover therapy in the ICC group, and by an increased proportion of patients in the nivolumab group with poor prognostic factors.

Project description:ImportanceCheckpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.ObjectiveTo compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory.ResultsBetween July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab.Trial registrationClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

Project description:PurposeThe combination of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab previously demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and an encouraging complete response rate (CRR) in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase Ib study. We report the efficacy and safety from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, international study of T-VEC plus pembrolizumab (T-VEC-pembrolizumab) versus placebo plus pembrolizumab (placebo-pembrolizumab) in patients with advanced melanoma.MethodsPatients with stage IIIB-IVM1c unresectable melanoma, naïve to antiprogrammed cell death protein-1, were randomly assigned 1:1 to T-VEC-pembrolizumab or placebo-pembrolizumab. T-VEC was administered at ≤ 4 × 106 plaque-forming unit (PFU) followed by ≤ 4 × 108 PFU 3 weeks later and once every 2 weeks until dose 5 and once every 3 weeks thereafter. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously 200 mg once every 3 weeks. The dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per modified RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included objective response rate per mRECIST, CRR, and safety. Here, we report the primary analysis for PFS, the second preplanned interim analysis for OS, and the final analysis.ResultsOverall, 692 patients were randomly assigned (346 T-VEC-pembrolizumab and 346 placebo-pembrolizumab). T-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.04; P = .13) or OS (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.22; P = .74) compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was 48.6% for T-VEC-pembrolizumab (CRR 17.9%) and 41.3% for placebo-pembrolizumab (CRR 11.6%); the durable response rate was 42.2% and 34.1% for the arms, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of patients in the T-VEC-pembrolizumab arm and in 19.5% of patients in the placebo-pembrolizumab arm.ConclusionT-VEC-pembrolizumab did not significantly improve PFS or OS compared with placebo-pembrolizumab. Safety results of the T-VEC-pembrolizumab combination were consistent with the safety profiles of each agent alone.

Project description:Purpose Tumor overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) has been associated with worse outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 30203, we found that the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in addition to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with moderate to high COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). CALGB 30801 (Alliance) was designed to prospectively confirm that finding. Patients and Methods Patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB with pleural effusion or stage IV according to American Joint Committee on Cancer [sixth edition] criteria) were preregistered, and biopsy specimens were analyzed for COX-2 by IHC. Patients with COX-2 expression ≥ 2, performance status of 0 to 2, and normal organ function were eligible. Chemotherapy was determined by histology: carboplatin plus pemetrexed for nonsquamous NSCLC and carboplatin plus gemcitabine for squamous histology. Patients were randomly assigned to celecoxib (400 mg twice per day; arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary objective was to demonstrate improvement in progression-free survival in patients with COX-2 index ≥ 4 with hazard ratio of 0.645 with approximately 85% power at two-sided significance level of .05. Results The study was halted for futility after 312 of the planned 322 patients with COX-2 index ≥ 2 were randomly assigned. There were no significant differences between the groups (hazard ratio, 1.046 for COX-2 ≥ 4). Subset analyses evaluating histology, chemotherapy regimen, and incremental COX-2 expression did not demonstrate any advantage for COX-2 inhibition. Elevation of baseline urinary metabolite of prostaglandin E2, indicating activation of the COX-2 pathway, was a negative prognostic factor. Values above the third quartile may have been a predictive factor. Conclusion COX-2 expression by IHC failed to select patients who could benefit from selective COX-2 inhibition. Urinary metabolite of prostaglandin E2 may be able to identify patients who could benefit from COX-2 inhibition.

Dataset Information

Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

Publications

Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets