Dataset Information

An adaptive population enrichment phase III trial of TRC105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (TAPPAS trial).

ABSTRACT: Background:Major challenges in clinical trials of ultra-orphan oncology diseases include limited patient availability and paucity of reliable prior data for estimating the treatment effect and, therefore, determining optimal sample size. Angiosarcoma (AS), a particularly aggressive form of soft tissue sarcoma with an incidence of about 2000 cases per year in the United States and Europe is poorly addressed by current systemic therapies. Pazopanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) is approved for the treatment of AS, with modest benefit. TRC105 (carotuximab) is a monoclonal antibody to endoglin, an essential angiogenic target highly expressed on proliferating endothelium and both tumor vessels and tumor cells in AS, that has the potential to complement VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In a phase I/II study of soft tissue sarcoma, TRC105 combined safely with pazopanib and the combination demonstrated durable complete responses and encouraging progression-free survival (PFS). In addition, there was a suggestion of superior benefit in patients with cutaneous lesions versus those with the non-cutaneous lesions. Patients and methods:This article describes the design of a recently initiated phase III trial of TRC105 And Pazopanib versus Pazopanib alone in patients with advanced AngioSarcoma (TAPPAS trial). Given the ultra-orphan status of the disease and the paucity of reliable prior data on PFS or overall survival (end points required for regulatory approval as a pivotal trial), an adaptive design incorporating population enrichment and sample size re-estimation was implemented. The design incorporated regulatory input from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency and proceeded following special protocol assessment designation by the FDA. Conclusions:It is shown that the benefit of the adaptive design as compared with a conventional single-look design arises from the learning and subsequent improvements in power that occur after an unblinded analysis of interim data. Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT02979899.

SUBMITTER: Mehta CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6336002 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An adaptive population enrichment phase III trial of TRC105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (TAPPAS trial).

Mehta C R CR Liu L L Theuer C C

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20190101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Major challenges in clinical trials of ultra-orphan oncology diseases include limited patient availability and paucity of reliable prior data for estimating the treatment effect and, therefore, determining optimal sample size. Angiosarcoma (AS), a particularly aggressive form of soft tissue sarcoma with an incidence of about 2000 cases per year in the United States and Europe is poorly addressed by current systemic therapies. Pazopanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial gro ...[more]

PMID: 30357394

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAngiosarcoma is a rare sarcoma subtype with a poor outcome. Carotuximab plus pazopanib produced a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.8 months in pazopanib-naive patients with chemotherapy-refractory angiosarcoma in a phase 1/2 trial.ObjectiveTo determine whether carotuximab plus pazopanib improves PFS compared with pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma.Design, setting, and participantsThe TAPPAS Trial: An Adaptive Enrichment Phase 3 Trial of TRC105 and Pazopanib vs Pazopanib Alone in Patients With Advanced Angiosarcoma was a multinational, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 123 patients 18 years or older with advanced angiosarcoma that was conducted between February 16, 2017, and April 12, 2019, at 31 sites in the US and the European Union. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib alone or carotuximab plus pazopanib. The trial incorporated an adaptive enrichment design. Inclusion criteria were no more than 2 prior lines of systemic therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The efficacy analysis used the intent-to-treat population; the safety analysis included all patients who received a dose of either study drug.ExposuresOral pazopanib, 800 mg/d, or intravenous carotuximab, 10 mg/kg, administered weekly, plus oral pazopanib, 800 mg/d, with dose modification allowed per patient tolerance or until disease progression.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was PFS, assessed by blinded independent radiographic and cutaneous photographic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines, version 1.1. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and overall survival. An interim analysis to determine the final sample size was conducted after enrollment of 123 patients. PFS in the group receiving pazopanib alone was compared with PFS in the group receiving carotuximab plus pazopanib using the log rank test.ResultsOf 114 patients with evaluable data (53 in the pazopanib arm and 61 in the carotuximab plus pazopanib arm), 69 (61%) were female and the median age was 68 years (range, 24-82 years); 57 (50%) had cutaneous disease and 32 (28%) had had no prior treatment. The primary end point (PFS) was not reached (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.84; P = .95), with a median of 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached) for pazopanib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.3 months) for the combination arm. The most common all-grade adverse events in the single-agent pazopanib arm vs the combination arm were fatigue (29 patients [55%] vs 37 [61%]), headache (12 patients [23%] vs 39 [64%]), diarrhea (27 patients [51%] vs 35 [57%]), nausea (26 patients [49%] vs 29 [48%]), vomiting (12 patients [23%] vs 23 [38%]), anemia (5 patients [9%] vs 27 [44%]), epistaxis (2 patients [4%] vs 34 [56%]), and hypertension (29 patients [55%] vs 22 [36%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, carotuximab plus pazopanib did not improve PFS compared with pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979899.

Project description:BackgroundRetrospective studies have shown that adjuvant treatment improves survival of patients with stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, but there is no evidence from prospective trials so far.Materials and methodsPatients with pathological stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive surgery alone (SA), postoperative radiotherapy (PORT), or postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (POCRT). PORT patients received 54 Gy in 27 fractions; the POCRT group received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, plus concurrent chemotherapy with paclitaxel (135-150 mg/m2 ) and cisplatin or nedaplatin (50-75 mg/m2 ) every 28 days. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 172 patients were enrolled (SA, n = 54; PORT, n = 54; POCRT, n = 64). The 3-year DFS was significantly better in PORT/POCRT patients than in SA patients (53.8% vs. 36.7%; p = .020); the 3-year OS was also better in PORT/POCRT patients (63.9% vs. 48.0%; p = .025). The 3-year DFS for SA, PORT, and POCRT patients were 36.7%, 50.0%, 57.3%, respectively (p = .048). The 3-year OS for SA, PORT, and POCRT patients were 48.0%, 60.8%, 66.5%, respectively (p = .048).ConclusionPORT/POCRT (especially POCRT) may significantly improve DFS and OS in stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Implications for practiceThe results of this phase III study indicated that postoperative radiotherapy/postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (PORT/POCRT) could significantly improve disease-free survival and overall survival in stage IIB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared with surgery alone with acceptable toxicities. In-field and out-of-field recurrences were comparable between the POCRT and PORT groups, which demonstrates the rationality and safety of the radiation field used in this study. The postoperative regimens in this trial might be accepted as standard treatment options for pathological stage IIB-III esophageal cancer. Larger sample size prospective randomized trials to identify the value are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundTemsirolimus has level 1 evidence for initial treatment of poor-risk patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but its efficacy has not been directly compared with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor [VEGFR TKi]) in this setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate temsirolimus versus pazopanib as first-line therapy in patients with mRCC, predominant clear-cell features, and clinical characteristics of a poor prognosis.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized (1:1) phase II trial in 69 treatment-naïve mRCC patients and with three or more predictors of short survival for temsirolimus was conducted during 2012-2017 in a single academic cancer center. Crossover to the alternative treatment upon discontinuation of the first-line agent was permitted.InterventionMechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor temsirolimus and VEGFR TKi pazopanib.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Radiographic response was assessed by blinded radiologists. Efficacy outcomes were adjusted by prior nephrectomy status, prior interleukin-2 treatment, and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score.Results and limitationsThirty-five patients received temsirolimus and 34 received pazopanib upfront; 72% overall had poor risk by IMDC. Median PFS in the first line was 2.7mo with temsirolimus and 5.2mo with pazopanib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-2.22; p=0.210). Median OS was 7.1mo with temsirolimus and 11.9mo with pazopanib (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.70-1.93; p=0.558), and ORRs were 5.9% and 21.2%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 0.9-29.3; p=0.062). PRO measures favored pazopanib. Five patients discontinued first-line therapy due to adverse events.ConclusionsTemsirolimus and pazopanib had modest activity in patients with poor-risk clear-cell mRCC, and therefore their use should be discouraged in this setting.Patient summaryWe evaluated outcomes of advanced renal cell carcinoma patients presenting with aggressive features when treated with temsirolimus or pazopanib as first-line therapy. Survival was <1yr for most, suggesting that more efficacious alternative treatments should be favored for these patients.

Dataset Information

An adaptive population enrichment phase III trial of TRC105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (TAPPAS trial).

Publications

An adaptive population enrichment phase III trial of TRC105 and pazopanib versus pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma (TAPPAS trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets