Dataset Information

Randomized phase 2 study comparing irinotecan versus amrubicin as maintenance therapy after first-line induction therapy for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (HOT1401/NJLCG1401).

ABSTRACT:

Background

A cisplatin plus irinotecan (CPT-11) regimen is used for patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Amrubicin (AMR) is primarily used for relapsed SCLC. The HOT1401/NJLCG1401 trial, an open-label randomized phase II trial, was designed to assess the benefit of maintenance therapy in patients with ED-SCLC who responded to induction therapy.

Methods

Patients with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed ED-SCLC were included and were treated with an induction therapy of four cycles of cisplatin (60 mg/m² on day 1) plus CPT-11 (60 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15) every four weeks. After induction therapy, patients who had nonprogressive disease were randomized to receive either maintenance CPT-11 (60 mg/m² on days 1 and 8) every three weeks, or AMR (35 mg/m² on days 1-3) every three weeks.

Results

A total of 34 patients were enrolled; 20 patients had progressive disease or received incomplete induction chemotherapy. Finally, 14 patients were randomly assigned to receive CPT-11 (n = 7) or AMR (n = 7). This study was terminated prematurely because of low patient accrual. The overall objective response rate was 73%, the median PFS was 5.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-11.8), and the median overall survival was 20.1 months (95% CI: 13.7-not reached). No statistically significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) were noted between patients treated with CPT-11 and those treated with AMR. There were no treatment-related deaths in this study.

Conclusions

Maintenance therapy with CPT-11 or AMR after induction therapy might be effective in some patients.

SUBMITTER: Tanaka H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8287008 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhase 3 randomized trials have shown that maintenance rituximab (MR) therapy or radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation following frontline therapy can improve progression-free survival for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), but the cost-effectiveness of these approaches with respect to observation has not been examined using a common modeling framework.ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the economic impact of MR and RIT consolidation versus observation, respectively, following the first-line induction therapy for patients with advanced-stage FL.MethodsWe developed Markov models to estimate patients' lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) after MR, RIT, and observation following frontline FL treatment from the US payer's perspective. Progression risks, adverse event probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from clinical data of Primary RItuximab and MAintenance (PRIMA) trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial (for MR), and First-line Indolent Trial (for RIT) and the published literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for direct comparisons between MR/RIT and observation. Model robustness was addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCompared with observation, MR provided an additional 1.089 QALYs (1.099 LYs) and 1.399 QALYs (1.391 LYs) on the basis of the PRIMA trial and the ECOG trial, respectively, and RIT provided an additional 1.026 QALYs (1.034 LYs). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $40,335 (PRIMA) or $37,412 (ECOG) for MR and $40,851 for RIT. MR and RIT had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, whereas RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to higher incidences of cytopenias.ConclusionsMR and RIT following frontline FL therapy demonstrated favorable and similar cost-effectiveness profiles. The model results should be interpreted within the specific clinical settings of each trial. Selection of MR, RIT, or observation should be based on patient characteristics and expected trade-offs for these alternatives.

Project description:BackgroundData are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.MethodsIn an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population.ResultsA total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall.ConclusionsAcross all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.).