Dataset Information

Randomized study of etirinotecan pegol versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor designed to provide sustained exposure to SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan). This phase II study compared EP versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for KRAS-mutant, irinotecan-naïve, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods

Patients were randomized to EP 145 mg/m² or irinotecan 350 mg/m² Q21d until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with response determined by central radiologic review (RECIST version 1.1).

Results

The study was terminated before completing accrual due to evolving standards of care. Eighty-three patients were randomized. Median PFS was longer with EP versus irinotecan (4.0 versus 2.8 months, respectively; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.40-1.04; P = 0.07). Six-month PFS rates were 32.8 and 15.4%, respectively. Median OS was 9.6 and 8.4 months in EP and irinotecan arms, respectively (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.56-1.49). ORRs were 10 and 5%, respectively (P = 0.676); median DOR was significantly longer in EP arm (7.9 versus 1.4 months; P = 0.018). The most common grade-3/4 adverse events for EP and irinotecan were diarrhea (21 vs 20%), neutropenia (10 vs 22%), abdominal pain (14 vs 5%), nausea (14 vs 2%), and vomiting (12 vs 7%), respectively.

Conclusion

EP is active and safe for second-line treatment of KRAS-mutant, irinotecan-naïve mCRC.

SUBMITTER: Lenz HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6863159 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized study of etirinotecan pegol versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Lenz Heinz-Josef HJ Philip Philip P Saunders Mark M Kolevska Tatjana T Mukherjee Kalyan K Samuel Leslie L Bondarde Shailesh S Dobbs Tracy T Tagliaferri Mary M Hoch Ute U Hannah Alison L AL Berkowitz Maurice M

Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology 20171017 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor designed to provide sustained exposure to SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan). This phase II study compared EP versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for KRAS-mutant, irinotecan-naïve, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomized to EP 145 mg/m<sup>2</sup> or irinotecan 350 mg/m<sup>2</sup> Q21d until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progre ...[more]

PMID: 29043412

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III EPIC study (EMR 062202-025) investigated cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-detectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy; we report the outcomes of patients with RAS-wild-type (wt) disease.Materials and methodsAvailable DNA samples from RAS-unselected patients (n = 1,164 of 1,298 [89.7%]) were reanalyzed for RAS mutations using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, safety, and poststudy therapy were assessed. RAS-wt status was defined as a mutated RAS allele frequency of ≤5%, with all relevant alleles being analyzable.ResultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (n = 452 patients with RAS-wt mCRC; cetuximab plus irinotecan n = 231, irinotecan n = 221) and between the RAS-wt and RAS-unselected populations. In the cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan arms, median overall survival was 12.3 versus 12.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 versus 2.6 months, and objective response rate (ORR) was 29.4% versus 5.0%, respectively. Quality of life (QoL) was improved in the cetuximab plus irinotecan arm. Serious adverse events occurred in 45.4% (cetuximab plus irinotecan) and 42.4% (irinotecan) of patients. In total, 47.1% of patients in the irinotecan arm received subsequent cetuximab therapy.ConclusionPFS, ORR, and QoL were improved with cetuximab plus irinotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with RAS-wt mCRC, confirming that cetuximab-based therapy is suitable in this population. Almost half of patients in the irinotecan arm received poststudy cetuximab, masking a potential overall survival benefit of cetuximab addition.Implications for practiceCetuximab is approved for the treatment of RAS-wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this retrospective analysis of the phase III EPIC study (cetuximab plus irinotecan vs. irinotecan alone as second-line treatment in patients with RAS-unselected mCRC), the subgroup of patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC who received cetuximab plus irinotecan had improved progression-free survival, objective response rate, and quality of life compared with the RAS-unselected population. These findings suggest that cetuximab-based therapy is a suitable second-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC.

Project description:BackgroundThe 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), however, the optimal second-line regimen for KRAS wild-type mCRC patients is still investigational. In this study, we aimed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of CMAB009 plus irinotecan compared to irinotecan-only as a second-line regimen for treating KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.MethodsPatients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who had previously failed to respond to FOLFOX treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio, to receive CMAB009 plus irinotecan or irinotecan-only. Patients receiving irinotecan-only were permitted to switch to CMAB009 therapy on disease progression and were grouped as the sequential-CMAB009 arm. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were median overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and duration of response (DOR).ResultsThe CMAB009 plus irinotecan arm demonstrated significantly improved ORR (33.2% vs. 12.8%; P < 0.001) and longer median PFS (169 days vs. 95 days; P < 0.001) as compared to the irinotecan-only arm. Patients receiving CMAB009 plus irinotecan also demonstrated improved DCR (80.1% vs. 65.2%, P < 0.001), CBR (30.0% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), and DOR (210 days vs. 109 days; P < 0.001) as compared to irinotecan-only. However, patients treated with CMAB009 had an increased risk of skin rash (66.9% vs. 5.5%, P < 0.001) and paronychia (9.8% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were detected in 3.6% of patients, and only 0.9% of patients who received CMAB009 experienced hypersensitivity reactions. In patients receiving sequential-CMAB009 therapy after failure with irinotecan, their median PFS was 84 days (95% CI 65 to 113 days). The median OS was 425 days for patients receiving CMAB009 plus irinotecan and 401 days for those with sequential-CMAB009 (P = 0.940).ConclusionsTreatment with CMAB009 plus irinotecan was found to be a superior second-line regimen in comparison to irinotecan-only in KRAS wild-type mCRC patients. Further, switching to CMAB009 can be considered as an efficient third-line of treatment after treatment failure with second-line irinotecan-only. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01550055, retrospectively registered on March 9, 2012.

Project description:The present study evaluated the efficiency, prognostic factors for and the safety of irinotecan combined with raltitrexed (TOMIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Outcome data of patients who received TOMIRI as first-, second- and third- or later-line treatment regimens were assessed to compare the efficacy of this regimen. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were evaluated for each group. Kaplan-Meier curves and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate efficacy. From January 2017 to December 2019, TOMIRI was administered as a first-line treatment in 23 patients, second-line treatment in 164 patients and third- or later-line treatment in 18 patients. Irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) was administered to another 50 patients, who served as the control group. The median PFS was 9, 7 and 6 months and the median OS was 37, 21 and 17 months for first-, second- and third- or later-line treatments, respectively. The ORRs of the included patients were 21.7, 13.4 and 11.1%, respectively, and the DCRs were 91.3, 81.7 and 66.7%, respectively. Compared with FOLFIRI, TOMIRI as a second-line chemotherapy treatment was associated with longer survival of the patients with CRC. Further analysis demonstrated that pathologic tumor-node-metastasis category, carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, treatment cycles, targeted therapy, treatment of local metastases and first-line PFS were prognostic factors for second-line treatment. Among these, the number of treatment cycles was of vital importance. Hepatic dysfunction was the most commonly reported grade 1-2 (55.1%) and grade 3-4 (7.3%) adverse event. Neutropenia (12.2%), thrombocytopenia (10.2%), anemia (27.3%), proteinuria (38.1%) and hematuria (21.0%) were also common grade 1-2 adverse events. In conclusion, TOMIRI may be recommended as an effective and safe second-line treatment for metastatic CRC in the clinic.

Project description:BackgroundFOLFIRI [irinotecan, folinic acid (CF), and fluorouracil] is considered a standard second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens. However, it remains unknown whether fluorouracil is still necessary in this case. This trial was designed to test the superiority of FOLFIRI over single-agent irinotecan as a second-line treatment for patients with mCRC.MethodsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted in five hospitals in China. From 4 November 2016 to 17 January 2020, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed unresectable mCRC and who had failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens were screened and enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive either FOLFIRI or irinotecan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and toxicity. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsA total of 172 patients with mCRC were randomly treated with FOLFIRI (n = 88) or irinotecan (n = 84). The median PFS was 104 and 112 days (3.5 and 3.7 months) in the FOLFIRI and irinotecan groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.084, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7911-1.485; p = 0.6094], and there was also no significant difference in OS and ORR between the two groups. The incidence of the following adverse events (AEs) was significantly higher in the FOLFIRI group than in the irinotecan group: any grade AEs including leucopenia (73.9% versus 55.4%), neutropenia (72.7% versus 56.6%), thrombocytopenia (31.8% versus 18.1%), jaundice (18.2% versus 7.2%), mucositis (40.9% versus 14.5%), vomiting (37.5% versus 21.7%), and fever (19.3% versus 7.2%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (47.7% versus 21.7%).ConclusionThis is the first head-to-head trial showing that single-agent irinotecan yielded PFS, OS, and ORR similar to FOLFIRI, with a more favorable toxicity profile; therefore, it might be a more favorable standard chemotherapy regimen for mCRC patients who failed first-line XELOX/FOLFOX regimens.Trial registrationThis study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02935764, registered 17 October 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02935764.

Project description:ImportancePatients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BM) have a poor prognosis and high clinical need for novel treatments; however, historically, studies have often excluded these patients. Although the BEACON study did not meet its primary end point, treatment with etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy of the physician's choice for patients with advanced breast cancer demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the prespecified patient subgroup with preexisting, pretreated, and nonprogressive BM.ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes in patients with BM treated with etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy of the physician's choice in a confirmatory trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial (ATTAIN) in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a history of stable pretreated BM who experienced disease progression while receiving chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. The trial took place at 47 sites in 10 countries, and patients were enrolled between March 7, 2017, and November 6, 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive etirinotecan pegol, 145 mg/m2, every 21 days or chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and the clinical benefit rate.ResultsA total of 178 female patients (9 [5.1%] Asian, 8 [4.5%] Black or African American, and 123 [69.1] White individuals) were randomized to receive treatment with etirinotecan pegol (92 [51.7%]; median [range] age, 53 [27-79] years) or chemotherapy (86 [48.3%]; median [range] age, 52 [24-77] years). Median OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol, 7.8 months; chemotherapy, 7.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median progression-free survival for non-central nervous system metastases per blinded independent central review for etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy was 2.8 and 1.9 months (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.16; P = .18) and 3.9 vs 3.3 months, respectively, for central nervous system metastases (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.33-1.05; P = .07). Safety profiles between the groups were largely comparable.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of the ATTAIN randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between treatment with etirinotecan pegol and chemotherapy in patients with BM. However, this study represents one of the largest published trials dedicated to patients with breast cancer and BM and may help to inform further research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02915744.

Dataset Information

Randomized study of etirinotecan pegol versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Randomized study of etirinotecan pegol versus irinotecan as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets