Dataset Information

A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Mipsagargin (G-202) as a Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: Background: Mipsagargin (G-202) is a thapsigargin-based prodrug with cytotoxic activity masked by a peptide that is cleaved by prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a protease expressed in prostate cancer cells and the endothelium of tumor vasculature. It was hypothesized that PSMA-mediated activation of mipsagargin would result in disruption of the tumor vasculature, leading to a decrease in blood flow, and in direct cytotoxic effects on tumor cells, resulting in anti-tumor activity. Method: In this open-label, Phase II study, mipsagargin was administered intravenously on Days 1, 2, and 3 of a 28-day cycle to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who progressed on or after treatment with sorafenib or intolerant of sorafenib. Assessments included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Blood flow metrics in hepatic lesions were evaluated using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). Results: Of 25 treated patients, 19 were evaluable for efficacy. None had an objective response, 12 (63.2%) had a best response of stable disease, and 12 (63.2%) showed radiologic progression; seven patients (36.8%) were censored. The median TTP was 134.0 days, median PFS was 129.0 days, and median OS was 205.0 days. Of five patients with DCE-MRI data for 11 HCC lesions, all demonstrated a reduced Ktrans (mean, 52%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were Grade 1-2 and consisted of increased blood creatinine (68.0%), fatigue (56.0%), and nausea (44.0%). Conclusions: Mipsagargin is relatively well tolerated and promotes prolonged disease stabilization in patients with advanced HCC that had progressed on prior treatment with sorafenib. A significant decrease in Ktrans upon treatment suggests mipsagargin reduces blood flow in hepatic lesions.

SUBMITTER: Mahalingam D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6627768 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Mipsagargin (G-202) as a Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Mahalingam Devalingam D Peguero Julio J Cen Putao P Arora Sukeshi P SP Sarantopoulos John J Rowe Julie J Allgood Victoria V Tubb Benjamin B Campos Luis L

Cancers 20190617 6

<i>Background</i>: Mipsagargin (G-202) is a thapsigargin-based prodrug with cytotoxic activity masked by a peptide that is cleaved by prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a protease expressed in prostate cancer cells and the endothelium of tumor vasculature. It was hypothesized that PSMA-mediated activation of mipsagargin would result in disruption of the tumor vasculature, leading to a decrease in blood flow, and in direct cytotoxic effects on tumor cells, resulting in anti-tumor activity ...[more]

PMID: 31212948

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhase III trials show sorafenib improves survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because of narrow trial eligibility, results may not be generalizable to a broader HCC population. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of initial sorafenib versus no treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced HCC.Materials and methodsPatients with advanced HCC diagnosed from 2008 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Eligible patients received initial sorafenib or no therapy and were covered by Medicare parts A, B, and D. Sorafenib use and outcomes were described in this population. Using a propensity score (PS)-matched sample, we compared the effectiveness of sorafenib versus no treatment by Cox proportional hazards and binomial regression, using a landmark requiring all patients to survive ?60 days after diagnosis.ResultsOf 1,532 patients, 27% received initial sorafenib. Median duration of sorafenib use was 60 days (interquartile range [IQR], 30-107 days), and median survival from first prescription was 3 months (IQR, 1-8 months). In the PS-matched cohort, median survival was 3 months from the 60-day landmark in sorafenib-treated (n = 223) and 2 months in untreated (n = 223) patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.16]). Sorafenib was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality at 3 months (44% versus 51%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.07]), but no reduction thereafter.ConclusionSurvival after sorafenib initiation in newly diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries with HCC is exceptionally short, suggesting trial results are not generalizable to all HCC patients. The downsides of sorafenib use-high drug-related symptom burden and high drug cost-must be considered in light of this minimal benefit.Implications for practiceThe findings of a median survival of only 3 months in Medicare beneficiaries with HCC prescribed sorafenib as first-line therapy highlight the questionable value of sorafenib in this population. Patients should be cautioned that outside of the narrow confines of randomized trials, their life expectancy may be very short, and any benefit of sorafenib is likely to be quite small. Given that sorafenib causes considerable adverse effects and offers no symptom palliation, supportive care should be discussed as a reasonable alternative to sorafenib, particularly for patients who have a poor performance status or advanced cirrhosis.

Project description:Lessons learnedTrebananib leveraging anti-angiogenic mechanism that is distinct from the classic sorafenib anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival at 4 months in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).In support of previously reported high Ang-2 levels' association with poor outcome in HCC for patients, trebananib treatment with lower baseline Ang-2 at study entry was associated with improved overall survival to 22 months and may suggest future studies to be performed within the context of low baseline Ang-2.BackgroundAng-1 and Ang-2 are angiopoietins thought to promote neovascularization via activation of the Tie-2 angiopoietin receptor. Trebananib sequesters Ang-1 and Ang-2, preventing interaction with the Tie-2 receptor. Trebananib plus sorafenib combination has acceptable toxicity. Elevated Ang-2 levels are associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsPatients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2, and Childs-Pugh A received IV trebananib at 10 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg weekly plus sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. The study was planned for ≥78% progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 4 months relative to 62% for sorafenib historical control (power = 80% α = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, overall survival (OS), and multiple biomarkers, including serum Ang-2.ResultsThirty patients were enrolled sequentially in each of the two nonrandomized cohorts. Demographics were comparable between the two arms and the historical controls. PFS rates at 4 months were 57% and 54% on the 10 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg trebananib cohorts, respectively. Median OS was 17 and 11 months, respectively. Grade 3 and above events noted in ≥10% of patients included fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, liver failure, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, dyspnea, and hypophosphatemia. One death was due to hepatic failure. Serum Ang-2 dichotomized at the median was associated with improved OS in both cohorts.ConclusionThere was no improvement in PFS rate at 4 months in either cohort, when compared with sorafenib historical control.

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Dataset Information

A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Mipsagargin (G-202) as a Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Publications

A Phase II, Multicenter, Single-Arm Study of Mipsagargin (G-202) as a Second-Line Therapy Following Sorafenib for Adult Patients with Progressive Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets