Dataset Information

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Temozolomide in Combination With Either Veliparib or Placebo in Patients With Relapsed-Sensitive or Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT: Purpose Both temozolomide (TMZ) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This phase II, randomized, double-blind study evaluated whether addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib to TMZ improves 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods A total of 104 patients with recurrent SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral veliparib or placebo 40 mg twice daily, days 1 to 7, and oral TMZ 150 to 200 mg/m2/day, days 1 to 5, of a 28-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Response was determined by imaging at weeks 4 and 8, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Improvement in PFS at 4 months was the primary end point. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability of veliparib with TMZ. Exploratory objectives included PARP-1 and SLFN11 immunohistochemical expression, MGMT promoter methylation, and circulating tumor cell quantification. Results No significant difference in 4-month PFS was noted between TMZ/veliparib (36%) and TMZ/placebo (27%; P = .19); median OS was also not improved significantly with TMZ/veliparib (8.2 months; 95% CI, 6.4 to 12.2 months; v 7.0 months; 95% CI, 5.3 to 9.5 months; P = .50). However, ORR was significantly higher in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib compared with TMZ/placebo (39% v 14%; P = .016). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia more commonly occurred with TMZ/veliparib: 50% versus 9% and 31% versus 7%, respectively. Significantly prolonged PFS (5.7 v 3.6 months; P = .009) and OS (12.2 v 7.5 months; P = .014) were observed in patients with SLFN11-positive tumors treated with TMZ/veliparib. Conclusion Four-month PFS and median OS did not differ between the two arms, whereas a significant improvement in ORR was observed with TMZ/veliparib. SLFN11 expression was associated with improved PFS and OS in patients receiving TMZ/veliparib, suggesting a promising biomarker of PARP-inhibitor sensitivity in SCLC.

SUBMITTER: Pietanza MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6085179 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Temozolomide in Combination With Either Veliparib or Placebo in Patients With Relapsed-Sensitive or Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Pietanza M Catherine MC Waqar Saiama N SN Krug Lee M LM Dowlati Afshin A Hann Christine L CL Chiappori Alberto A Owonikoko Taofeek K TK Woo Kaitlin M KM Cardnell Robert J RJ Fujimoto Junya J Long Lihong L Diao Lixia L Wang Jing J Bensman Yevgeniva Y Hurtado Brenda B de Groot Patricia P Sulman Erik P EP Wistuba Ignacio I II Chen Alice A Fleisher Martin M Heymach John V JV Kris Mark G MG Rudin Charles M CM Byers Lauren Averett LA

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20180615 23

Purpose Both temozolomide (TMZ) and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are active in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This phase II, randomized, double-blind study evaluated whether addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib to TMZ improves 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods A total of 104 patients with recurrent SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral veliparib or placebo 40 mg twice daily, days 1 to 7, and oral TMZ 150 to 200 mg/m<sup>2</sup>/day, days 1 to 5 ...[more]

PMID: 29906251

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bendamustine plus rituximab is a standard of care for the management of patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. New therapies are needed to improve clinically relevant outcomes in these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adding idelalisib, a first-in-class targeted phosphoinositide-3-kinase ? inhibitor, to bendamustine plus rituximab in this population.For this international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult patients (?18 years) with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia requiring treatment who had measurable lymphadenopathy by CT or MRI and disease progression within 36 months since their last previous therapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a central interactive web response system to receive bendamustine plus rituximab for a maximum of six cycles (bendamustine: 70 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 2 for six 28-day cycles; rituximab: 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, and 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) in addition to either twice-daily oral idelalisib (150 mg) or placebo until disease progression or intolerable study drug-related toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by high-risk features (IGHV, del[17p], or TP53 mutation) and refractory versus relapsed disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01569295.Between June 26, 2012, and Aug 21, 2014, 416 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the idelalisib (n=207) and placebo (n=209) groups. At a median follow-up of 14 months (IQR 7-18), median progression-free survival was 20·8 months (95% CI 16·6-26·4) in the idelalisib group and 11·1 months (8·9-11·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·33, 95% CI 0·25-0·44; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events in the idelalisib group were neutropenia (124 [60%] of 207 patients) and febrile neutropenia (48 [23%]), whereas in the placebo group they were neutropenia (99 [47%] of 209) and thrombocytopenia (27 [13%]). An increased risk of infection was reported in the idelalisib group compared with the placebo group (grade ?3 infections and infestations: 80 [39%] of 207 vs 52 [25%] of 209). Serious adverse events, including febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, and pyrexia, were more common in the idelalisib group (140 [68%] of 207 patients) than in the placebo group (92 [44%] of 209). Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death occurred in 23 (11%) patients in the idelalisib group and 15 (7%) in the placebo group, including six deaths from infections in the idelalisib group and three from infections in the placebo group.Idelalisib in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab improved progression-free survival compared with bendamustine plus rituximab alone in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, careful attention needs to be paid to management of serious adverse events and infections associated with this regimen during treatment selection.Gilead Sciences Inc.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The 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. METHODS:In 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). RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Although 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.

Project description:Safe and effective treatments are urgently needed for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vosaroxin, a first-in-class anticancer quinolone derivative, plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia.This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken at 101 international sites. Eligible patients with acute myeloid leukaemia were aged 18 years of age or older and had refractory disease or were in first relapse after one or two cycles of previous induction chemotherapy, including at least one cycle of anthracycline (or anthracenedione) plus cytarabine. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to vosaroxin (90 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 4 in a first cycle; 70 mg/m(2) in subsequent cycles) plus cytarabine (1 g/m(2) intravenously on days 1-5) or placebo plus cytarabine through a central interactive voice system with a permuted block procedure stratified by disease status, age, and geographical location. All participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival and the primary safety endpoint was 30-day and 60-day all-cause mortality. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01191801.Between Dec 17, 2010, and Sept 25, 2013, 711 patients were randomly assigned to vosaroxin plus cytarabine (n=356) or placebo plus cytarabine (n=355). At the final analysis, median overall survival was 7·5 months (95% CI 6·4-8·5) in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group and 6·1 months (5·2-7·1) in the placebo plus cytarabine group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·02; unstratified log-rank p=0·061; stratified p=0·024). A higher proportion of patients achieved complete remission in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group (107 [30%] of 356 patients vs 58 [16%] of 355 patients, p<0·0001). Early mortality was similar between treatment groups (30-day: 28 [8%] of 355 patients in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group vs 23 [7%] of 350 in the placebo plus cytarabine group; 60-day: 70 [20%] vs 68 [19%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred at any time in 20 (6%) of 355 patients given vosaroxin plus cytarabine and in eight (2%) of 350 patients given placebo plus cytarabine. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 116 (33%) and 58 (17%) patients in each group, respectively. Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more frequent in the vosaroxin plus cytarabine group than in the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropenia (66 [19%] vs 49 [14%]), stomatitis (54 [15%] vs 10 [3%]), hypokalaemia (52 [15%] vs 21 [6%]), bacteraemia (43 [12%] vs 16 [5%]), sepsis (42 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), and pneumonia (39 [11%] vs 26 [7%]).Although there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between groups, the prespecified secondary analysis stratified by randomisation factors suggests that the addition of vosaroxin to cytarabine might be of clinical benefit to some patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia.Sunesis Pharmaceuticals.

Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Dataset Information

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Temozolomide in Combination With Either Veliparib or Placebo in Patients With Relapsed-Sensitive or Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Publications

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Temozolomide in Combination With Either Veliparib or Placebo in Patients With Relapsed-Sensitive or Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure