Dataset Information

Study protocol of the FIRE-8 (AIO-KRK/YMO-0519) trial: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II trial investigating the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Initial systemic therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually based on two- or three-drug chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine), oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, combined with either anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) or, for RAS wild-type (WT) tumors, anti-EGFR antibodies (panitumumab or cetuximab). Recommendations for patients who are not eligible for intensive combination therapies are limited and include fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab or single agent anti-EGFR antibody treatment. The use of a monochemotherapy concept of trifluridine/ tipiracil in combination with monoclonal antibodies is not approved for first-line therapy, yet. Results from the phase II TASCO trial evaluating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus bevacicumab in first-line treatment of mCRC patients and from the phase I/II APOLLON trial investigating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus panitumumab in pre-treated mCRC patients suggest favourable activity and tolerability of these new therapeutic approaches.

Methods

FIRE-8 ( NCT05007132 ) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study which aims to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m² body surface area (BSA), orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, q28 days) plus either the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (6 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm A] or (as control arm) the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm B] in RAS WT mCRC patients. The primary objective is to demonstrate an improved objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 from 30% (control arm) to 55% with panitumumab. With a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 138 evaluable patients are needed. Given an estimated drop-out rate of 10%, 153 patients will be enrolled.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC patients. The administration of anti-EGFR antibodies rather than anti-VEGF antibodies in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil may result in an increased initial efficacy.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2019-004223-20 . Registered October 22, 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05007132 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

SUBMITTER: Sommerhauser G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9327141 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) (d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38.

Project description:BACKGROUND:FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS:CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n?=?592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P?=?0.051), PFS (P?<?0.001), and OS (P?<?0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS:CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent third-line therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) have limited efficacy. Rechallenge with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for RAS wild-type (WT) MCRC may be valuable for these patients.ObjectiveTo compare the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab plus standard-of-care trifluridine-tipiracil with trifluridine-tipiracil alone as third-line therapy for RAS WT MCRC.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in 7 Italian centers from June 2019 to April 2022. Patients with refractory RAS WT MCRC who had a partial or complete response to first-line chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody and an anti-EGFR drug-free interval of 4 or more months during second-line therapy were included.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil or trifluridine-tipiracil alone.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) extended sequence variation analysis was performed in a subgroup of patients.ResultsOf 62 included patients, 31 received panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil (19 [61.3%] male; median age, 65 years [range, 39-81 years]) and 31 received trifluridine-tipiracil alone (17 [54.8%] male; median age, 66 years [range, 32-82 years]). The primary end point was met. Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.3 months) in the panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil arm vs 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.6 months) in the trifluridine-tipiracil only (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.82; P = .007). Pretreatment plasma RAS/BRAF WT ctDNA identified patients obtaining prolonged clinical benefit with panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil compared with trifluridine-tipiracil, with PFS rates at 6 months of 38.5% vs 13.0% and at 12 months of 15.4% vs 0%. A ctDNA liquid-biopsy extended mutation analysis by FoundationOne Liquid CDx (profiling 324 genes) was performed in a subgroup of patients with baseline plasma RAS/BRAF WT ctDNA; in 15 of 23 patients (65.2%) whose tumors were WT for KRAS, NRAS, BRAFV600E, EGFR, ERBB2, MAP2K1, and PIK3CA, median PFS was 6.4 months (95% CI, 3.7-9.2 months). Within this group of 15 patients, 2 (13.3%) had partial response, 11 (73.3%) had stable disease, and 2 (13.3%) had disease progression as best response.Conclusions and relevanceIn this RCT, third-line treatment with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab plus the standard-of-care trifluridine-tipiracil resulted in improved PFS compared with treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil alone among patients with refractory RAS WT MCRC. The findings support the clinical utility of liquid biopsy-guided anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy for refractory RAS WT MCRC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05468892.

Project description:BackgroundTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and regorafenib (REG) are standard therapies for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No results of large real-world data directly comparing FTD/TPI + bevacizumab (BEV) with FTD/TPI or REG monotherapy have been reported. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI + BEV in a real-world setting.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study used a Japanese claims database provided by Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan). Eligible patients were aged 20 years and over with a diagnosis of mCRC, and received their first dose of FTD/TPI or REG from 2014 to 2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in a propensity score matching (PSM) population in which PSM was carried out by matching using a 1 : 1 ratio for the FTD/TPI + BEV group and the control group (FTD/TPI or REG) by propensity score. To enhance robustness, sensitivity analyses of OS were carried out using the inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) approach and the analysis in the all eligible population. Secondary endpoints included time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), incidence of adverse events, and post-treatment.ResultsEligible population was 2369 for the FTD/TPI + BEV group and 9318 for the control group. The PSM population was 1787 for each group. Median OS (mOS) was longer in the FTD/TPI + BEV group compared to the control group [17.0 versus 11.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, P < 0.001] in the PSM population. Similarly, mOS was longer for the FTD/TPI + BEV group compared to that for the control group in IPTW analyses and in the all eligible population (both HRs = 0.68). Median TTD was 3.3 months for the FTD/TPI + BEV group and 1.8 months for the control group in the PSM population (P < 0.001).ConclusionsReal-world data showed that FTD/TPI + BEV was significantly associated with OS and TTD compared to FTD/TPI or REG. In clinical practice, FTD/TPI + BEV can be a favorable regimen for refractory mCRC.

Project description:PurposeThe randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsFollowing first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873).ResultsOverall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%).ConclusionIn RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.