Dataset Information

Eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase 3, open-label, randomised study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This subgroup analysis of a phase 3 study compares outcomes for eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients with leiomyosarcoma.

Methods

Patients ≥18 years old with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma, ECOG PS ≤2, and ≥2 prior treatment regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) to eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 and day 8) or dacarbazine (either 850, 1000, or 1200 mg/m² intravenously) every 21 days until disease progression. The primary end point was OS; additional end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Results

309 Patients with leiomyosarcoma were included (eribulin, n = 157; dacarbazine, n = 152). Median age was 57 years; 42% of patients had uterine disease and 57% had nonuterine disease. Median OS was 12.7 versus 13.0 months for eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93 [95% CI 0.71-1.20]; P = 0.57). Median PFS (2.2 vs 2.6 months, HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.84-1.38]; P = 0.58) and ORR (5% vs 7%) were similar between eribulin- and dacarbazine-treated patients. Grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 69% of patients receiving eribulin and 59% of patients receiving dacarbazine.

Conclusions

Efficacy of eribulin in patients with leiomyosarcoma was comparable to that of dacarbazine. Both agents had manageable safety profiles.

SUBMITTER: Blay JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738064 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Treatment options for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients aged ?65?years (elderly) can be limited by concerns regarding the increased risk of toxicity associated with standard systemic therapies. Trabectedin has demonstrated improved disease control in a phase III trial (ET743-SAR-3007) of patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Since previous retrospective analyses have suggested that trabectedin has similar safety and efficacy outcomes regardless of patient age, we carried out a subgroup analysis of the safety and efficacy observed in elderly patients enrolled in this trial. Patients and methods:Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to trabectedin (n?=?384) or dacarbazine (n?=?193) administered intravenously every-3-weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-progression, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, symptom severity, and safety. A post hoc analysis was conducted in the elderly patient subgroup. Results:Among 131 (trabectedin?=?94; dacarbazine?=?37) elderly patients, disease characteristics were well-balanced and consistent with those of the total study population. Treatment exposure was longer in patients treated with trabectedin versus dacarbazine (median four versus two cycles, respectively), with a significantly higher proportion receiving prolonged therapy (?6 cycles) in the trabectedin arm (43% versus 23%, respectively; P?=?0.04). Elderly patients treated with trabectedin showed significantly improved PFS [4.9 versus 1.5?months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR)=0.40; P?=?0.0002] but no statistically significant improvement in OS (15.1 versus 8.0?months, respectively; HR?=?0.72; P?=?0.18) or ORR (9% versus 3%, respectively; P?=?0.43). The safety profile for elderly trabectedin-treated patients was comparable to that of the overall trabectedin-treated study population. Conclusions:This subgroup analysis of the elderly population of ET743-SAR-3007 suggests that elderly patients with STS and good performance status can expect clinical benefit from trabectedin similar to that observed in younger patients. Trial registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01343277.

Project description:An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027.284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively).Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Project description:BackgroundNon-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.MethodsWe enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445.FindingsBetween Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none).InterpretationIn patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors.FundingNovartis and Pfizer.