Dataset Information

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

ABSTRACT: TRIAL INFORMATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02048371 Sponsors: SARC, with support from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals (Berlin, Germany) Principal Investigator: Richard F. Riedel IRB Approved: Yes LESSONS LEARNED: The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist. BACKGROUND:Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recurrent and metastatic non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. We conducted a randomized, phase II study of regorafenib versus placebo in refractory liposarcoma patients. METHODS:Patients with advanced or metastatic, treatment-refractory liposarcoma were randomized 1:1 to receive regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily (3?weeks on, 1 week off). Patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma only were excluded. Crossover for placebo was allowed upon progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), according to RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS:Forty-eight subjects with liposarcoma (34 dedifferentiated, 12 myxoid/round cell, 2 pleomorphic) were enrolled. Median PFS was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-3.67) months for regorafenib versus 2.07 (95% CI, 1.64-3.44) months for placebo; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 (95% CI, 0.46, 1.58), p = .62. No responses were seen on regorafenib. One PR was observed on placebo. Median overall survival was 6.46 (95% CI, 4.16-23.48) months for regorafenib and 4.89 (95% CI, 3.02-9.77) months for placebo, stratified HR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31-1.40), p = .28). Treatment-related adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of regorafenib. CONCLUSION:Regorafenib did not appear to improve PFS in treatment-refractory liposarcoma. No new significant safety signals were observed.

SUBMITTER: Riedel RF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7648334 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

Riedel Richard F RF Ballman Karla V KV Lu Yao Y Attia Steven S Loggers Elizabeth T ET Ganjoo Kristen N KN Livingston Michael B MB Chow Warren W Wright Jennifer J Ward John H JH Rushing Daniel D Okuno Scott H SH Reed Damon R DR Liebner David A DA Keedy Vicki L VL Mascarenhas Leo L Davis Lara E LE Ryan Christopher C Reinke Denise K DK Maki Robert G RG

The oncologist 20200820 11

<h4>Lessons learned</h4>The results from the liposarcoma cohort of SARC024 confirm previously published data and do not support the routine use of regorafenib in this patient population. Continued exploration of novel therapies, including combination approaches, is warranted for a patient population in whom limited treatment options exist.<h4>Background</h4>Regorafenib is a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with a kinase profile overlapping, but distinct from, pazopanib, an agent approved for recur ...[more]

PMID: 32701199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIn 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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:BackgroundRegorafenib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here, we report the treatment patterns of regorafenib in the third- or late-line setting for mCRC in four centers in China.Patients and methodsPatients with refractory mCRC in four centers in China administered regorafenib from February 1, 2018 to June 31, 2021 were enrolled. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts, namely, the monotherapy (regorafenib alone), chemo (regorafenib plus chemotherapy), and immune [regorafenib plus anti-PD1 (programmed cell death 1) antibodies] groups. Demographic, clinical, survival and safety data were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsA total of 177 patients were included in this study. Of them, 116 (65.5%) were treated with regorafenib alone, while 28 (15.9%) and 33 (18.6%) were administered regorafenib plus chemotherapy and anti-PD1 antibodies, respectively. The median followed-up time was 9.2 months. The disease control rate (DCR) was 40.7%. The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.43 months and the median OS (mOS) was 12.2 months. The immune group had longer median PFS (3.5 m vs. 2.2 m, p = 0.043) compared with the monotherapy group. Patients administered regorafenib plus chemotherapy had longer median OS (15.9 m vs. 8.4 m, p = 0.032) compared with the monotherapy group. Patients who began regorafenib treatment at 120 mg had longer median PFS and OS compared with those who began at 80 mg (PFS: 3.7 m vs. 2.0 m; p <0.001; OS: 13.4 m vs. 10.2 m; p = 0.005). Patients with a final dose of 120 mg had longer median PFS and OS compared with the 80 mg or less group (PFS: 5.0 m vs. 2.3 m; p = 0.045; OS: UR (unreach) vs. 10.9 m; p = 0.003). There were 87.0% (154/177) patients who experienced AEs. Three groups had similar rates of AEs (86.2% vs. 89.3% vs. 87.9%; p = 0.89).ConclusionPatients administered regorafenib alone or regorafenib in combination with other agents were relieved to some extent, with a disease control rate of 40.7%. Regorafenib plus anti-PD1 antibodies showed better PFS, while regorafenib plus chemotherapy had the most benefit in OS. There was no significant difference among three groups in terms of AEs.

Project description:IntroductionRegorafenib was recently approved for patients with pretreated advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC), despite a moderate improvement of the patients' outcome, and significant toxicities. Based on previous studies showing that early fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)-based metabolic response assessment (MRA) might adequately select patients unlikely to benefit from treatment, the RegARd-C trial uses early MRA to identify likely non-responders to regorafenib in a population of patients with aCRC and guide a comprehensive evaluation of genomic and epigenetic determinants of resistance to treatment.Methods and analysisRegARd-C is a multicentric prospective study. Its primary objective is to identify non-benefitters from regorafenib given at 160 mg/day, 3 weeks out of 4 in a population of patients with pretreated aCRC. Baseline PET is repeated at day 14 of the first treatment course. MRA is blinded for the investigators. Overall survival (OS) is the primary end point and will be correlated with metabolic parameters and (epi)genetic alterations assessed from tumour and serial blood samples. A target sample size of 105 evaluable patients (70 as derivation set and 35 as validation set), is considered as sufficient to validate an expected HR for OS of metabolic responders compared to metabolic non-responders significantly <1 (with 80% power and 1-sided 5% α in case of a true HR≤0.59 and a responders rate of 47%).Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Institut Jules Bordet's competent ethics committee and complies with the Helsinki declaration or the Belgian laws and regulations, whichever provides the greatest protection for the patient, and follows the International Conference on Harmonisation E 6 (R1) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, reference number CPMP/ICH/135/95. The protocol and the trials results, even inconclusive, will be presented at international oncology congresses, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Genomic and epigenetic data will be made available in public open data sets.Trial registration numbersEudraCT number: 2012-005655-16; ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01929616.

Dataset Information

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

Publications

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study of Regorafenib Versus Placebo in Advanced/Metastatic, Treatment-Refractory Liposarcoma: Results from the SARC024 Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets