Dataset Information

Anlotinib Monotherapy for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Phase III Trial (ALTER0703).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were limited. Anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. ALTER0703 study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of anlotinib for patients with refractory mCRC.

Materials and methods

This was a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial involving 33 hospitals in China. Patients had taken at least two lines of therapies were 2:1 randomized to receive oral anlotinib (12 mg/day; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Randomization was stratified by previous VEGF-targeting treatments and time from diagnosis to metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and safety.

Results

A total of 419 patients (anlotinib: 282; placebo: 137) were treated from December 2014 to August 2016. The median PFS was improved in anlotinib group (4.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.5) over placebo group (1.5 months; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43; p < .0001). However, median OS was similar between two groups (8.6 months; 95% CI, 7.8-9.7 vs. 7.2 months; 95% CI, 6.2-8.8; HR, 1.02; p = .870). Improvements of ORR and DCR were observed in anlotinib over placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 anlotinib related adverse events were hypertension (20.92%), increased γ-GT (7.09%), and hand-foot skin reaction (6.38%).

Conclusion

Anlotinib was tolerated in Chinese patients with refractory mCRC. Although OS did not reach significant difference, anlotinib still provided clinical benefits by substantially prolonged PFS in these patients.

Implications for practice

In this randomized clinical trial that included 419 patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantial prolonged in progression-free survival was noted in patients who received anlotinib compared with those given placebo. Improvements on objective response rate and disease control rate was also observed in anlotinib group. However, overall survival was similar between the two groups. In a word, in third-line or above treatment of Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, anlotinib provided clinical benefit by significantly prolonged progression-free survival.

SUBMITTER: Chi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8488800 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Angiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies. Patients and methods:Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200?mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review. Results:From October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n?=?384; placebo n?=?381). Median follow-up was 13.4?months (interquartile range 11.1-15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4?months with nintedanib versus 6.0?months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-1.19; P?=?0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4?months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49-0.69; P?<?0.0001). There were no complete or partial responses. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of 384 nintedanib-treated patients and 93% of 381 placebo-treated patients. The most frequent grade ?3 AEs were liver-related AEs (nintedanib 16%; placebo 8%) and fatigue (nintedanib 9%; placebo 6%). Conclusions:The study failed to meet both co-primary end points. Nintedanib did not improve OS and was associated with a significant but modest increase in PFS versus placebo. Nintedanib was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number:NCT02149108 (LUME-Colon 1).

Project description:A 14-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of Japanese patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who were randomized to either duloxetine 60?mg once daily or placebo.This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine monotherapy in Japanese patients with CLBP.In Japan, duloxetine is approved for the treatment of depression, diabetic neuropathic pain, and pain associated with fibromyalgia; however, no clinical study of duloxetine has been conducted for CLBP.The primary efficacy measure was the change in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score from baseline to Week 14. Secondary efficacy measures included BPI pain (worst pain, least pain, pain right now), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, among other measures, and safety and tolerability.In total, 458 patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine (n?=?232) or placebo (n?=?226). The BPI average pain score improved significantly in the duloxetine group compared with that in the placebo group at Week 14 [-2.43?±?0.11 vs. -1.96?±?0.11, respectively; between-group difference (95% confidence interval),?-?0.46 [-0.77 to-0.16]; P?=?0.0026]. The duloxetine group showed significant improvement in many secondary measures compared with the placebo group, including BPI pain (least pain, pain right now) (between-group difference: -1.69?±?0.10, P?=?0.0009; -2.42?±?0.12, P P?=?0.0230, respectively), Patient's Global Impression of Improvement (2.46?±?0.07, P?=?0.0026), Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (-1.46?±?0.06, P?=?0.0019), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (-3.86?±?0.22, P?=?0.0439). Adverse events occurring at a significantly higher incidence in the duloxetine group were somnolence, constipation, nausea, dizziness, and dry mouth, most of which were mild or moderate in severity and were resolved or improved.Duloxetine 60?mg was effective and well tolerated in Japanese CLBP patients.2.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The 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. METHODS:In 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). RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Although 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:IntroductionManagement of patients with cancer suffering from neuropathic pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids remains an important challenge. Duloxetine is one of the choices after first-line treatment fails. The efficacy of duloxetine has been reported in patients with non-cancer disease and in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, but no randomised clinical trials have examined its effects on neuropathic cancer pain refractory to first-line treatment. The objective of this study is to assess the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine in patients suffering from neuropathic cancer pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids.Methods and analysisA multi-institutional, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-parallel trial is planned. The inclusion criteria are adult patients with cancer suffering from neuropathic cancer pain refractory to opioids and gabapentinoids, patients with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 4 or higher and patients with a total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score of less than 20. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy are excluded. The study will take place at 14 sites across Japan. Participants will be randomised (1:1 allocation ratio) to a duloxetine intervention group or a placebo control group. Evaluations will be made at baseline (T0 randomisation), day 0 (T1), day 3 (T2) and day 10 (T3). The primary endpoint is defined as the difference in NRS score for pain intensity (average over the previous 24 hours) at T3 between the duloxetine and placebo groups. A sample size of 70 patients will be examined between July 2015 and March 2018.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained at all participating sites.The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the key findings presented at international scientific conferences.Trial registration numberUMIN000017647; Pre-results.Protocol version2.2, 26 April 2017.

Project description: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.

Project description:Background: Tuberculous meningitis (TBM), the most severe form of tuberculosis (TB), results in death or neurological disability in >50%, despite World Health Organisation recommended therapy. Current TBM regimen dosages are based on data from pulmonary TB alone. Evidence from recent phase II pharmacokinetic studies suggests that high dose rifampicin (R) administered intravenously or orally enhances central nervous system penetration and may reduce TBM associated mortality. We hypothesize that, among persons with TBM, high dose oral rifampicin (35 mg/kg) for 8 weeks will improve survival compared to standard of care (10 mg/kg), without excess adverse events. Protocol: We will perform a parallel group, randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind, phase III multicentre clinical trial comparing high dose oral rifampicin to standard of care. The trial will be conducted across five clinical sites in Uganda, South Africa and Indonesia. Participants are HIV-positive or negative adults with clinically suspected TBM, who will be randomised (1:1) to one of two arms: 35 mg/kg oral rifampicin daily for 8 weeks (in combination with standard dose isoniazid [H], pyrazinamide [Z] and ethambutol [E]) or standard of care (oral HRZE, containing 10 mg/kg/day rifampicin). The primary end-point is 6-month survival. Secondary end points are: i) 12-month survival ii) functional and neurocognitive outcomes and iii) safety and tolerability. Tertiary outcomes are: i) pharmacokinetic outcomes and ii) cost-effectiveness of the intervention. We will enrol 500 participants over 2.5 years, with follow-up continuing until 12 months post-enrolment. Discussion: Our best TBM treatment still results in unacceptably high mortality and morbidity. Strong evidence supports the increased cerebrospinal fluid penetration of high dose rifampicin, however conclusive evidence regarding survival benefit is lacking. This study will answer the important question of whether high dose oral rifampicin conveys a survival benefit in TBM in HIV-positive and -negative individuals from Africa and Asia. Trial registration: ISRCTN15668391 (17/06/2019).