Dataset Information

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Methods

In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m²) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment.

Findings

Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis.

Interpretation

To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting.

Funding

US National Cancer Institute.

SUBMITTER: Konstantinopoulos PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8023719 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLate treatment failures after artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) for falciparum malaria have increased in the Greater Mekong subregion in southeast Asia. Addition of amodiaquine to artemether-lumefantrine could provide an efficacious treatment for multidrug-resistant infections.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, randomised trial at five hospitals or health centres in three locations (western Cambodia, eastern Cambodia, and Vietnam). Eligible participants were male and female patients aged 2-65 years with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in blocks of eight to 12) to either artemether-lumefantrine alone (dosed according to WHO guidelines) or artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine (10 mg base per kg/day), both given orally as six doses over 3 days. All received a single dose of primaquine (0·25 mg/kg) 24 h after the start of study treatment to limit transmission of the parasite. Parasites were genotyped, identifying artemisinin resistance. The primary outcome was Kaplan-Meier 42-day PCR-corrected efficacy against recrudescence of the original parasite, assessed by intent-to-treat. Safety was a secondary outcome. This completed trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03355664).FindingsBetween March 18, 2018, and Jan 30, 2020, 310 patients received randomly allocated treatment; 154 received artemether-lumefantrine alone and 156 received artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine. Parasites from 305 of these patients were genotyped. 42-day PCR-corrected treatment efficacy was noted in 151 (97%, 95% CI 92-99) of 156 patients with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 146 (95%, 89-97) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone; hazard ratio (HR) for recrudescence 0·6 (95% CI 0·2-1·9, p=0·38). Of the 13 recrudescences, 12 were in 174 (57%) of 305 infections with pfkelch13 mutations indicating artemisinin resistance, for which 42-day efficacy was noted in 89 (96%) of 93 infections with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine versus 73 (90%) of 81 infections with artemether-lumefantrine alone; HR for recrudescence 0·44 (95% CI 0·14-1·40, p=0·17). Artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine was generally well tolerated, but the number of mild (grade 1-2) adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, was greater in this group compared with artemether-lumefantrine alone (vomiting, 12 [8%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·03; and nausea, 11 [7%] with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine vs three [2%] with artemether-lumefantrine alone, p=0·05). Early vomiting within 1 h of treatment, requiring retreatment, occurred in no patients of 154 with artemether-lumefantrine alone versus five (3%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·06. Bradycardia (≤54 beats/min) of any grade was noted in 59 (38%) of 154 patients with artemether-lumefantrine alone and 95 (61%) of 156 with artemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine, p=0·0001.InterpretationArtemether-lumefantrine plus amodiaquine provides an alternative to artemether-lumefantrine alone as first-line treatment for multidrug-resistant P falciparum malaria in the Greater Mekong subregion, and could prolong the therapeutic lifetime of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-endemic populations.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust.

Project description:ImportancePatients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (PR-HGSC) have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Preclinical studies support targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in this setting, and a phase 1 study of the dual mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib with weekly paclitaxel showed activity.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the addition of vistusertib to weekly paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes in patients with PR-HGSC.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from UK cancer centers between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients with PR-HGSC of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal origin and with measurable or evaluable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and/or Gynecological Cancer Intergroup cancer antigen 125 criteria) were eligible. There were no restrictions on number of lines of prior therapy. Data analysis was performed from May 2019 to January 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomized (1:1) to weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) plus oral vistusertib (50 mg twice daily) or placebo.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included response rate, overall survival, and quality of life.ResultsA total of 140 patients (median [range] age, 63 [36-86] years; 17.9% with platinum-refractory disease; 53.6% with ≥3 prior therapies) were randomized. In the paclitaxel plus vistusertib vs paclitaxel plus placebo groups, there was no difference in progression-free survival (median, 4.5 vs 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 80% CI, 0.67-1.07; 1-sided P = .18), overall survival (median, 9.7 vs 11.1 months; HR, 1.21; 80% CI, 0.91-1.60) or response rate (odds ratio, 0.86; 80% CI, 0.55-1.36). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were 41.2% (weekly paclitaxel plus vistusertib) vs 36.7% (weekly paclitaxel plus placebo), and there was no difference in quality of life.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of weekly paclitaxel and dual mTORC1/2 inhibition in patients with PR-HGSC, vistusertib did not improve clinical activity of weekly paclitaxel.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16426935.

Project description:BackgroundLow-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.MethodsThis international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m2 by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m2 by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting.FindingsBetween Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationTrametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.FundingNRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis.

Project description:IntroductionHaemodialysis (HD) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, highly protein bound or large molecular weight uremic toxins such as phenolic and indolic compounds and homocysteine, which are associated with adverse outcomes such as cardiovascular disease of patients with ESRD, are difficult to remove via HD but can be effectively eliminates by haemoperfusion (HP). The proposed trial (referred to as HD/HP vs HD below) is a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial comparing HD plus HP versus HD alone in adult patients with ESRD. The primary endpoint measure is all-cause mortality.Methods and analysisWe plan to enrol 1364 maintenance HD patients from 11 medical centres in Shanghai. Participants will be randomised to receive HD plus HP or HD alone at a 1:1 ratio after 1-month run-in period. In both arms, patients will receive low-flux HD at a frequency of two times a week and haemodiafiltration at a frequency of once a week. In the intervention group, subjects also received HP once every 2 weeks. Follow-up is scheduled at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomisation, and will consist the following: routine physical examinations, standard lab panels (blood routine, liver/residual kidney functions, tests of the coagulation system, etc), dialysis adequacy (standard Kt/V), chest X-ray, ECG, echocardiography, heart function rating. Adverse events will be assessed according to the international conference on harmonisation guidelines. The primary outcome is 24-month all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will include cardiovascular-related mortality, the occurrence of major cardiovascular events and the quality of life.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committees of all 11 participating centres. Clinical Research Unit of Xin Hua Hospital will oversee the study. The results will be presented at national and international academic meetings, and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publications.Trial registration numberNCT03227770; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundEvofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas.MethodsWe did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5-20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6-96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30-60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088.FindingsBetween Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6-22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2-22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3-4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]).InterpretationThe addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting.FundingThreshold Pharmaceuticals.