A randomised phase 2b study comparing the efficacy and safety of belotecan vs. topotecan as monotherapy for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
This study compared the efficacy/safety of the camptothecin analogues belotecan and topotecan for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).Methods
One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients were randomised (1:1) to receive five consecutive daily intravenous infusions of topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) or belotecan (0.5 mg/m2), every 3 weeks, for six cycles. Main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerability and toxicity. The study statistical plan was non-inferiority design with ORR as the endpoint.Results
In the belotecan vs. topotecan groups, ORR (primary endpoint) was 33% vs. 21% (p = 0.09) and DCR was 85% vs. 70% (p = 0.030). PFS was not different between groups. Median OS was significantly longer with belotecan than with topotecan (13.2 vs. 8.2 months, HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99), particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease (i.e., extensive-stage disease, time to relapse: 3-6 months), or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2. More belotecan recipients completed all treatment cycles (53% vs. 35%; p = 0.022).Conclusions
The efficacy/safety of belotecan warrants further evaluation in Phase 3 trials. Belotecan potentially offers an alternative to topotecan for sensitive-relapsed SCLC, particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease, or poor performance.
SUBMITTER: Kang JH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7884704 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThis Phase 2b study compared the efficacy and toxicity of belotecan and topotecan in recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsPatients with platinum-sensitive recurrent or platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRROC) were randomised 1:1 to receive belotecan 0.5 mg/m2 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 for five consecutive days every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.ResultsA total of 140 (belotecan, n = 71; topotecan, n = 69) and 130 patients (belotecan, n = 66; topotecan, n = 64) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. ORR did not differ significantly between the belotecan and topotecan groups (ITT, 29.6% versus 26.1%; PP, 30.3% versus 25%). Although PFS did not differ between the groups, belotecan was associated with improved OS compared with topotecan in the PP population (39.7 versus 26.6 months; P = 0.034). In particular, belotecan showed longer OS in PRROC and non-high-grade serous carcinoma (non-HGSC; PP, adjusted hazard ratios, 0.499 and 0.187; 95% confidence intervals 0.255-0.977 and 0.039-0.895). Furthermore, there were no differences in toxicities between the two groups.ConclusionsBelotecan was not inferior to topotecan in terms of overall response for recurrent ovarian cancer.Clinical trial registrationNCT01630018.
| S-EPMC7853132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. The combination of topotecan and cyclophosphamide (TC) has activity in pediatric patients with recurrent sarcoma, especially Ewing's sarcoma (EWS). We sought to determine the toxicity of and response to TC in adults with recurrent sarcoma. Patients and Methods. Adults treated with TC from 2005 to 2010 were reviewed who received T = topotecan at 0.75?mg/m(2)/day (days 1-5) and C = cyclophosphamide at 250?mg/m(2)/day (days 1-5) every 21 days. Results. Fifteen patients, median age 31 years (range 17.5-56) had nonpleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS, n = 6), EWS, n = 5, synovial sarcoma (SS, n = 2) leiomyosarcoma (LMS, n = 1), and desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT, n = 1). Median time to progression was 2.5 months (range 1.6-13.0). Partial responses were seen in 2/6 RMS and 1/2 SS. Stable disease was seen in 2/5 EWS, 1/2 SS and 1 DSRCT. The most common reason for stopping treatment was progressive disease 12/15, (80%). Hematologic toxicity was common; 7 (47%) patients required blood product transfusion, 5 (33%) patients had fever/neutropenia. At median follow-up time of 7.7 months, all but 1 patient had died of disease.TC combination is tolerable but has only modest activity in adults with recurrent sarcoma. Other regimens deserve exploration for this high-risk group of patients.
| S-EPMC3407653 | biostudies-other
Project description:Treatment options for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are limited, with no standard of care; prognosis is poor, with 4- to 6-month median survival. Avadomide (CC-122) is a cereblon-modulating agent with immunomodulatory and direct antitumor activities. This phase 1 dose-expansion study assessed safety and clinical activity of avadomide monotherapy in patients with de novo R/R DLBCL and transformed lymphoma. Additionally, a novel gene expression classifier, which identifies tumors with a high immune cell infiltration, was shown to enrich for response to avadomide in R/R DLBCL. Ninety-seven patients with R/R DLBCL, including 12 patients with transformed lymphoma, received 3 to 5 mg avadomide administered on continuous or intermittent schedules until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawal. Eighty-two patients (85%) experienced ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), most commonly neutropenia (51%), infections (24%), anemia (12%), and febrile neutropenia (10%). Discontinuations because of AEs occurred in 10% of patients. Introduction of an intermittent 5/7-day schedule improved tolerability and reduced frequency and severity of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and infections. Among 84 patients with de novo R/R DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 29%, including 11% complete response (CR). Responses were cell-of-origin independent. Classifier-positive DLBCL patients (de novo) had an ORR of 44%, median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6 months, and 16% CR vs an ORR of 19%, mPFS of 1.5 months, and 5% CR in classifier-negative patients (P = .0096). Avadomide is being evaluated in combination with other antilymphoma agents. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01421524.
| S-EPMC7099331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This randomized, open-label, phase 2b study (NCT01565668) evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens of quizartinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3-internal tandem duplication (ITD)-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who previously underwent transplant or 1 second-line salvage therapy. Patients (N = 76) were randomly assigned to 30- or 60-mg/day doses (escalations to 60 or 90 mg/day, respectively, permitted for lack/loss of response) of single-agent oral quizartinib dihydrochloride. Allelic frequency of at least 10% was defined as FLT3-ITD-mutated disease. Coprimary endpoints were composite complete remission (CRc) rates and incidence of QT interval corrected by Fridericia's formula (QTcF) of more than 480 ms (grade 2 or greater). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), duration of CRc, bridge to transplant, and safety. CRc rates were 47% in both groups, similar to earlier reports with higher quizartinib doses. Incidence of QTcF above 480 ms was 11% and 17%, and QTcF above 500 ms was 5% and 3% in the 30- and 60-mg groups, respectively, which is less than earlier reports with higher doses of quizartinib. Median OS (20.9 and 27.3 weeks), duration of CRc (4.2 and 9.1 weeks), and bridge to transplant rates (32% and 42%) were higher in the 60-mg groups than in the 30-mg group. Dose escalation occurred in 61% and 14% of patients in the 30- and 60-mg groups, respectively. This high clinical activity of quizartinib at the evaluated doses is consistent with previous reports with an improved safety profile. Need to dose-escalate more than half of patients who received quizartinib 30 mg also supports further investigation of treatment with quizartinib 60 mg/day.
| S-EPMC6085992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate.MethodsWe searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used opposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions.ResultsSeven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment.ConclusionsConcerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan.
| S-EPMC2931489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Isatuximab, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, targets cells that strongly express CD38 including malignant plasma cells. This open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 1/2 trial investigated the tolerability/safety and efficacy of isatuximab monotherapy in Japanese patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In Phase 1, patients were sequentially assigned to receive isatuximab once weekly (QW) in cycle 1 (4 weeks) and every 2 weeks (Q2W) in subsequent cycles. Cohort 1 (n = 3) received 10 mg/kg QW/Q2W; cohort 2 (n = 5) received 20 mg/kg QW/Q2W. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred; the recommended dose for the single-arm phase 2 study (n = 28) was 20 mg/kg QW/Q2W. The overall safety profile was consistent with the current knowledge of isatuximab. The most common adverse events were infusion reactions (42.9%; 12/28); all were grade 1/2 and generally occurred during the first infusion. The overall response rate with 20 mg/kg QW/Q2W isatuximab was 36.4% (12/33); patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities had comparable results. In phase 2, the median progression-free survival was 4.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.75 to not reached) months. Median overall survival was not reached. Isatuximab monotherapy was well tolerated and effective in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM including high-risk cytogenetic patients. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02812706.
| S-EPMC7734004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceProbation is a cornerstone of efforts to reduce mass incarceration. Although it is understudied, specialty probation could improve outcomes for the overrepresented group of people with mental illness.ObjectiveTo test whether specialty probation yields better public safety outcomes than traditional probation.Design, setting, and participantsA longitudinal observational study with group matching on age, sex, race/ethnicity, probation time, and offense at 2 urban agencies that exemplify specialty and traditional probation. Enrollment began October 19, 2005; follow-up data were complete January 26, 2013. Participants were 359 diverse probationers with serious mental health problems and functional impairment. Probationers and officers were assessed 3 times (for probationers, 6-month retention, 315 of 359 [88%]; 12-month retention 304 of 359 [85%]) and follow-up records were obtained. Machine learning algorithms were combined with a targeted maximum likelihood estimation, a double robust estimator that accounts for associations between confounders and both treatment assignment and outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 1, 2016 to May 5, 2017.InterventionsSpecialty probationers were assigned to small, homogeneous caseloads supervised by experts. Prior data indicate that specialty officers had better relationships with probationers, participated more in probationers' treatment, and relied more on positive compliance strategies than traditional officers.Main outcomes and measuresViolence during 1 year, determined by probationer report, officer report, and records, and rearrest during a period of 2 to 5 years, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation records.ResultsParticipants were 183 specialty (73.8% of 248 eligible) and 176 traditional (56.6% of 311 eligible) probationers (205 men and 154 women; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [10.6]). Although specialty probation had no significant effect on violence (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36), the odds of rearrest were 2.68 times higher for traditional probationers than for specialty probationers (95% CI, 1.86-3.84; P?<?.001). At 2 years, estimated probabilities of rearrest were 28.6% for specialty probationers and 51.8% for traditional probationers. Survival analyses indicate that arrest effects endured up to 5 years.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough it did not specifically reduce violence, well-implemented specialty probation appears to be effective in reducing general recidivism. Reform efforts for people with mental illness could leverage probation-a ubiquitous and revitalized node of the justice system.
| S-EPMC5710232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the clinical use of third-line treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the combination treatment is increasingly used due to problems such as drug resistance, and while their efficacy has been proven, whether they are economical has become a new issue. A recent trial showed copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy (CRCT) had better efficacy in the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) compared to rituximab monotherapy (RM). However, the long-term cost and effectiveness of this regimen is not known. We are the first to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CRCT in third-line treatment of relapsed iNHL from the perspective of US payers.MethodsWe used a Markov model to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which included a population from CHRONOS-3 with mean age of 62.5 years and total cycle length of 16.3 years. The cycle length was 1 month, adverse reaction rates were from CHRONOS-3, mean body surface area was referenced from published literature, cost values are referenced from published literature and Drugbank, utility values were referenced from the published literature, and the primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150,000 per QALYs, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to verify the robustness of the model. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars and costs and utilities have been calculated at a discount rate of 3% per year.ResultsCRCT and RM obtained 6.53 QALYs and 5.15 QALYs, respectively, and the ICER of CRCT vs. RM was $358,895.2/QALYs. Parameters having the greatest impact on the robustness of the model were the drug cost of copanlisib and the utility value of the progression-free survival (PFS) state. When the WTP threshold was $150,000, the probability of CRCT and RM being the most cost effective was 0.4% and 99.6% respectively.ConclusionsFrom a US payer perspective, CRCT is not cost-effective in treating relapsed iNHL at current prices compared to RM. But given its positive clinical efficacy, appropriate price discounts or assistance programs should be considered to make CRCT more affordable to patients with relapsed iNHL.
| S-EPMC9011241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Belantamab mafodotin, a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), was investigated in Japanese patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in Part 1 of the phase I DREAMM-11 study. Patients who had received ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulatory agent were eligible. Eight patients received belantamab mafodotin monotherapy at 2.5 mg/kg (n = 4) or 3.4 mg/kg (n = 4) by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks on day 1 of each cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary objectives were tolerability and safety, and secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy. The most common Grade ≥ 3 adverse event was thrombocytopenia/platelet count decreased (2.5 mg/kg cohort, 100% [4/4]; 3.4 mg/kg cohort, 75% [3/4]), and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Ocular events, including keratopathy findings, were observed in most patients (2.5 mg/kg cohort, 100% [4/4]; 3.4 mg/kg cohort, 75% [3/4]) and were managed with dose modifications. All resolved within the study period. Overall response rates were 50% (2/4) in the 2.5 mg/kg cohort and 25% (1/4) in the 3.4 mg/kg cohort. Although PK profiles in Japanese patients varied, individual exposures overlapped with previous results in Western populations. Belantamab mafodotin monotherapy was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity at both doses.
| S-EPMC10615937 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSeveral maintenance therapies are available for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in these patients.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for publications up to April 7, 2021. Original studies that had information on lenalidomide monotherapy for DLBCL patients with R/R status were included. Meta-analyses of response rates, adverse events (AEs), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed. The pooled event rates were calculated using a double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances of the original proportions. Subgroup analysis was used to compare patients with different germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) phenotypes.ResultsWe included 11 publications that examined DLBCL patients with R/R status. These studies were published from 2008 to 2020. The cumulative objective response rate (ORR) for lenalidomide monotherapy was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.40), and the ORR was better in patients with the non-GCB phenotype (0.50; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.74) than the GCB phenotype (0.06; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.11). The major serious treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, respiratory disorders, anemia, and diarrhea. The median PFS ranged from 2.6 to 34 months and the median OS ranged from 7.8 to 37 months.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that lenalidomide monotherapy was active and tolerable in DLBCL patients with R/R status. Patients in the non-GCB subgroup had better responsiveness.
| S-EPMC8674688 | biostudies-literature