Dataset Information

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy vs physicians' choice standard-of-care treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a post-approval registry study (EF-19).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a noninvasive, anti-mitotic treatment modality, is approved for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) and newly diagnosed GBM based on phase III, EF-11 (NCT00379470) and EF-14 (NCT00916409) studies, respectively. The EF-19 study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of TTFields monotherapy (200 kHz) vs physicians' choice standard of care (PC-SOC; EF-11 historical control group) in rGBM.

Methods

A prospective, post-marketing registry study of adults with supratentorial rGBM treated with TTFields therapy was conducted. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS; intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and secondary endpoint was OS per-protocol (PP). Subgroup and toxicity analyses were conducted.

Results

Median OS (ITT population) was comparable with TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (7.4 vs 6.4 months, log-rank test P = 0.053; Cox test hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.66 [0.47-0.92], P = 0.016). The upper-bound HR (95% CI) was lower than pre-defined noninferiority (1.375 threshold). In the PP population, median OS was significantly longer for TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (8.1 vs 6.4 months; log-rank test P = 0.017; Cox test HR [95% CI], 0.60 [0.42-0.85], P = 0.004). TTFields therapy showed increased benefit with extended use (≥ 18 h/day [averaged over 28 days]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events (AEs) by body system were lower vs PC-SOC: mainly mild-to-moderate skin AEs.

Conclusion

In the real-world setting, TTFields monotherapy showed comparable (ITT population) and superior (PP population) OS vs PC-SOC in rGBM. In line with previous results, TTFields therapy showed a favorable safety profile vs chemotherapy, without new safety signals/systemic effects.

Trial registration

NCT01756729, registered December 20, 2012.

SUBMITTER: Zhu JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9568629 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy vs physicians' choice standard-of-care treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a post-approval registry study (EF-19).

Zhu Jay-Jiguang JJ Goldlust Samuel A SA Kleinberg Lawrence R LR Honnorat Jérôme J Oberheim Bush Nancy Ann NA Ram Zvi Z

Discover oncology 20221014 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a noninvasive, anti-mitotic treatment modality, is approved for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) and newly diagnosed GBM based on phase III, EF-11 (NCT00379470) and EF-14 (NCT00916409) studies, respectively. The EF-19 study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of TTFields monotherapy (200 kHz) vs physicians' choice standard of care (PC-SOC; EF-11 historical control group) in rGBM.<h4>Methods</h4>A prospective, post-marketing registry study ...[more]

PMID: 36239858

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstudied elderly patients comprise a large segment of high-risk patients with glioblastoma (GBM) that are challenging to treat. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) is a locoregional, noninvasive, antimitotic therapy delivering low-intensity, intermediate-frequency alternating electric fields to the tumor. In the phase 3 EF-14 clinical trial, TTFields (200 kHz) improved median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM) when added concomitantly to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ). This EF-14 subgroup analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of TTFields in elderly patients.MethodsAll 134 patients who are ≥65 years of age were included (TTFields/TMZ combination, n=89; TMZ monotherapy, n=45; 2:1 ratio of randomization). PFS and OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology (α=0.05). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire QLQ-C30 supplemented with the brain tumor module (QLQ-BN20). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for AEs (CTCAE) v4.0.ResultsThe PFS was 6.5 months in patients randomized to the treatment group with TTFields/TMZ combination versus 3.9 months in patients treated with TMZ monotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.74; P=0.0236). The OS was 17.4 months in patients treated with TTFields/TMZ combination versus 13.7 months in patients treated with TMZ monotherapy (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.77; P=0.0204). Annual survival rates with TTFields/TMZ versus TMZ monotherapy were 39% (95% CI, 29-50%) versus 27% (95% CI, 15-41%; P=0.072) at 2 years, 19% (95% CI, 11-29%) versus 11% (95% CI, 4-23%; P=0.135) at 3 years, and 15% (95% CI, 7-25%) versus 0% at 5 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups in the preselected items of HRQoL assessment. Grade ≥3 systemic AEs were 46% in the TTFields/TMZ group versus 40% in the TMZ monotherapy group, without statistically significant difference between the two groups. The only TTFields-related AEs were reversible scalp skin reactions, with grades 1-2 and grade 3 skin reactions reported by 51% and 2% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsCombining TTFields with maintenance TMZ significantly improved PFS and OS in elderly patients with ndGBM in the phase 3 EF-14 clinical trial, without significant increases in systemic toxicity or negatively affecting patient HRQoL. TTFields-related skin AEs were low-grade and manageable.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00916409, identifier: NCT00916409.

Project description:BackgroundTumour-treating fields therapy is a locoregional, anti-cancer treatment. Efficacy and safety of tumour-treating fields therapy in adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were demonstrated in the pivotal phase 3 EF-14 study (NCT00916409). Here, we report post-approval data of tumour-treating fields therapy in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.MethodsUnsolicited post-marketing surveillance data from Japanese patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with tumour-treating fields therapy (December 2016-June 2020) were retrospectively analysed. The primary endpoints were skin, neurological and psychiatric adverse events. The secondary endpoints were 1- and 2-year overall survival rates, and the 6-month progression-free survival. adverse events were analysed using MedDRA v24.0. The overall survival and progression-free survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank testing). The Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were also performed.ResultsForty patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were enrolled (62.5% male; median age 59 years; median baseline Karnofsky Performance Scale score 90). The most common tumour-treating-fields-therapy-related adverse event was beneath-array local skin reaction (60% of patients). The adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Neurological disorders were observed in 2.5% patients (one patient reported dysesthesia). No psychiatric disorders were reported. The 1- and 2-year overall survival rates were 77.9% (95% CI 60.6-88.3) and 53.6% (35.5-68.7%), respectively. The 6-month progression-free survival was 77.5% (61.2-87.6%). These survival rates compare favourably with those in the EF-14 trial (1- and 2-year overall survival rates: 73% [69-77%] and 43% [39-48%], respectively; 6-month progression-free survival rate: 56% (51-61%).ConclusionThis post-approval, real-world evidence study revealed no new safety signals and suggests the safety and efficacy of tumour-treating fields therapy in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Dataset Information

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy vs physicians' choice standard-of-care treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a post-approval registry study (EF-19).

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy vs physicians' choice standard-of-care treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a post-approval registry study (EF-19).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets