scholarly journals Sequential Treatment of Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreatic Duct with Liver Metastasis Following the NAPOLI-1 Study Protocol with nal-Irinotecan plus 5-FU in the Second Line

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
Dilara Akhoundova Sanoyan ◽  
Cäcilia S. Reiner ◽  
Panagiota Papageorgiou ◽  
Alexander R. Siebenhüner
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Sequential Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Curative Surgery ◽  
To Receive

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is typically diagnosed at an advanced or metastatic stage, when curative surgery is not recommended. Therefore, the prognosis is poor for this dismal disease, with only 1–2% of the patients reaching the 5-year survival follow-up. Current advances in systemic treatment with gemcitabine regimens, specifically polychemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or other multidrug regimens such as FOLFIRINOX in the first line, have improved disease control over time. This higher efficacy of systemic treatment enables metastatic PDAC patients to receive second-line treatment more often nowadays. Currently, there is only one regimen for second-line treatment approved by the EMA, FDA, and Swissmedic, based on the phase III NAPOLI-1 study. In this case report, we present an outstanding response to sequential treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel followed by second-line treatment with nal-irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil.

Second-line chemotherapy (CT) with or without bevacizumab (BV) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) who progressed to a first-line treatment containing BV: Updated results of the phase III “BEBYP” trial by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest (GONO).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3615-3615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Masi ◽  
Fotios Loupakis ◽  
Lisa Salvatore ◽  
Chiara Cremolini ◽  
Lorenzo Fornaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

3615 Background: Retrospective data suggested that the continuation of BV with second-line CT beyond progression (PD) in pts who received BV in first-line can improve the outcome. Recently, results of the AIO/AMG ML18147 study demonstrated an improved overall survival (OS) by continuing BV beyond PD. Methods: This phase III study randomized pts with measurable mCRC treated in first-line with BV plus fluoropyrimidine, FOLFIRI, FOLFOX or FOLFOXIRI, to receive in second-line mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI (depending on first-line CT) with or without BV. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS).To detect a HR for PFS of 0.70 with an α and β error of 0.05 and 0.20 respectively, the study required 249 events. Assuming an accrual time of 24 months (mos) and a follow up of 12 mos we planned to randomize 262 pts. Results: Considering the results of the AIO/AMG ML18147 trial, the study accrual was stopped prematurely. A total of 185 pts were randomized and 184 pts were included in the ITT analysis (1 pt randomized in error). Pts characteristics were (arm A/arm B): number 92/92, gender M75%-F25%/M57%-F43%, median age 66 (38-75)/62 (38-75) years, PS=0 82%/82%, multiple site of disease 76%/77%. At a median follow up of 18 mos the study met its primary endpoint by improving PFS in the BV arm. We updated results and at a median follow up of 22 mos the improvement in PFS for the experimental arm was confirmed with a median PFS of 5.2 mos for arm A and 6.7 mos for arm B (HR=0.66; 95% CI 0.49–0.90; unstratified p=0.0072). Subgroup analyses showed a consistent benefit in all subgroups including gender (F: HR=0.63; M: HR=0.72) and first-line PFS (≤10 mos: HR=0.57; >10 mos: HR=0.71). Response rates (RECIST) were 18% and 21% (p=0.71). Toxicity profile was consistent with previously reported data. The OS data are still immature, with 56 events in arm A and 54 in arm B and the median OS is 16.0 mos and 16.5 mos respectively (HR=0.83; 95% CI 0.57-1.22; unstratified p=0.34). Conclusions: This study demonstrates an improvement in PFS by continuing BV in second-line in pts who had received CT+BV in first-line. Clinical trial information: NCT00720512.

Real-world utilization and safety of ipilimumab plus nivolumab (I+N) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients: Results from the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System (CKCis).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 633-633
Author(s):  
Myuran Thana ◽  
Naveen S. Basappa ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Christian K. Kollmannsberger ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Real World ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cancer Information ◽  
Time To Failure ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
To Receive

633 Background: I+N is now standard of care for first line treatment of intermediate/poor risk mRCC patients (pts). Real world data is vital to understand drug usage, toxicity and outcomes in non-trial pts. This project describes the amount and tolerability of treatment delivered including discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation and outcomes from the CKCis database. Methods: Pts in CKCis, a prospective Canadian database from 15 academic centers, who received first line I+N were included. The number of doses of I+N, number of pts who received single-agent nivolumab (N) and duration of single agent N were determined. Reasons for treatment discontinuation, including the rate, type, and grade of toxicities were identified. Efficacy outcomes included time to failure (TTF – time to progression, death, or second line therapy), overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Results: The cohort consists of 182 pts. Median age was 63 yrs, 71% had clear cell histology, 11% were on a clinical trial, the IMDC risk distribution was 5% good, 63% intermediate, 32% poor. Median follow up was 8.8 m. All 4 I+N doses were received by 30% of pts of which 78% went on to receive single-agent N. Less than 4 doses of I+N were received by 70% of pts of which 28% went on to receive single-agent N. The median time on single agent N was 5.7 m. In the entire cohort, 21% of patients discontinued therapy due to toxicity. The most common toxicity events were colitis (56% of all events), pneumonitis (19%), and hepatitis (8%). There were no toxicity-related deaths. Median OS has not been reached (22 events to date). Median TTF was 12.4 m. ORR was 32% (5% complete responses). 26% of pts received second line treatment, the most common being sunitinib in 79%. Conclusions: In this real world cohort, the majority of mRCC pts did not receive all 4 doses of I+N, contrasting with clinical trial reporting, yet many of these pts went on to receive single agent N. Discontinuation rates due to toxicity were similar to those reported in CheckMate 214. Further follow up is ongoing and efficacy outcomes analyzed on the basis of treatment quantity/duration will be presented.

A phase II trial combining tumor-targeting TP53 gene therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4139-4139
Author(s):  
Chris Poki Leung ◽  
Minal A. Barve ◽  
Ming-Shiang Wu ◽  
Kathleen F. Pirollo ◽  
James F. Strauss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Therapy ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Tp53 Gene ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

4139 Background: Nearly all stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) patients progress after first-line treatment, and second-line options are limited. SGT-53 is an investigational product for tumor-targeted TP53 gene therapy that has completed phase Ia/Ib trials [Senser et al (2013), Mol Ther 21:1096; Pirollo et al (2016) Mol Ther 24:1697]. Methods: Here we provide an interim analysis of a Phase II trial (SGT53-02-1; NCT02340117) combining SGT-53 with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEM/ABX). Eligible were first-line patients or those who had progressed after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and/or gemcitabine-based therapy (second-line). In a 7-week treatment cycle, SGT-53 (3.6 mg DNA) was given once or twice weekly with GEM/ABX (1000 mg/m2/wk and 125 mg/m2/wk, respectively, for 3 of 4 weeks). Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are primary endpoints.Overall survival (OS) and PFS are estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Of all evaluable patients (n=20), best response in 7 patients was determined to be partial response (PR) and 13 had stable disease (SD); none had progressive disease. In the second-line patients (n=11) there were 5 PR and 6 SD after 9 had failed FFX treatment, 3 had failed gemcitabine-based treatment and 1 had failed both. For patients with elevated CA19-9, SGT-53 + GEM/ABX resulted in marked reductions in the tumor marker. Published data for patients with PAC after therapy failure [Mita et al (2019) J Clin Med 8: 761; Portal et al (2015) Br J Cancer 113:989; Wang-Gillam et al (2016) Lancet 387:545] are shown for comparison. Notably, mPFS in our second-line patients was 7.4 months versus 3.1 months for the approved second-line therapy [Wang-Gillam et al (2016)]. This improvement in PFS exceeds the benchmark proposed to predict a clinically meaningful Phase III trial [Rahib et al (2016) Lancet Oncol 2:1209]. Conclusions: Our data suggest a clinically meaningful benefit of adding SGT-53 to GEM/ABX particularly for second-line PAC patients, most of whom had failed prior FFX treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT02340117. [Table: see text]

Oxaliplatin Plus Irinotecan Compared With Irinotecan Alone as Second-Line Treatment After Single-Agent Fluoropyrimidine Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (28) ◽  
pp. 4544-4550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Haller ◽  
Mace L. Rothenberg ◽  
Alfred O. Wong ◽  
Piotr M. Koralewski ◽  
Wilson H. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Sensory Disturbances ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (IROX) is superior to irinotecan alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) previously treated with single-agent fluoropyrimidines. Patients and Methods A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC that had progressed or recurred during or after adjuvant or first-line fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine, the latter only for metastatic CRC). Patients received IROX (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2) or irinotecan alone (350 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Results At the data cutoff (when 447 of 628 randomly assigned patients had died), median overall survival was 13.4 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 14.7 months) and 11.1 month (95% CI, 10.0 to 12.7 months) in the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P = .0072). Overall response rate (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P < .0001), and improvement in tumor-related symptoms (32% v 19%, respectively; P = .0072) were also improved with IROX as compared with irinotecan. With the exception of granulocytopenia (25% v 13%), diarrhea (28% v 23%), and sensory disturbances (5% v 0%), grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively. Conclusion IROX is an effective treatment for metastatic CRC that has progressed after first-line fluoropyrimidine therapy. IROX improves efficacy compared with irinotecan alone, providing an additional option in the postadjuvant or second-line treatment setting for patients who experience treatment failure with single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy.

scholarly journals Evaluation of second line and subsequent targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first line cediranib

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Richter ◽  
Jo-An Seah ◽  
Gregory R Pond ◽  
Hui K Gan ◽  
Mary J. Mackenzie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

Introduction: Pivotal phase III trials have positioned angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for the management of most advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCC). Approaches to second-line therapy, however, remain more controversial with respect to drug selection and drug sequencing.Methods: In this study we evaluated mRCC patients who were initially treated on the first-line National Cancer Institute (NCI) trial with the highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cediranib, to determine the efficacy and tolerability of subsequent therapies.Results: Twenty-eight (65.1%) of the 43 patients enrolled on the first-line cediranib trial were known to receive second-line therapy, most commonly sunitinib (n = 21), with 4 (14%), 2 (7%) and 1 (3%) patients receiving temsirolimus, sorafenib, and interleukin, respectively. Of these, 14 (50%) went on to have 3 or more lines of therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) proportion (PFS) at 1 year from starting second line was 30% (14.5%–47.9%). Longer duration of first-line cediranib treatment was modestly associated with longer duration of second-line treatment (Spearman rho 0.26). Patients who discontinued cediranib for toxicity were less likely to receive second-line sunitinib.Conclusion: In this real world evaluation, sequential use of TKIs for the management of mRCC was common. PFS with sequential TKIs was similar to observed and published results for any second-line therapy. Prior toxicity affected treatment patterns and the frequent use of at least 3 lines of therapy underscores the need for prospective sequencing trials in this disease.

Aromatase Inhibitors in the Treatment and Prevention of Breast Cancer

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 881-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Goss ◽  
Kathrin Strasser
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Aromatase Inhibitors ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Third

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the current clinical status and possible future applications of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature on the third-generation aromatase inhibitors was conducted. Some data that have been presented but not published are included. In addition, the designs of ongoing trials with aromatase inhibitors are outlined and the implications of possible results discussed. RESULTS: All of the third-generation oral aromatase inhibitors—letrozole, anastrozole, and vorozole (nonsteroidal, type II) and exemestane (steroidal, type I)—have now been tested in phase III trials as second-line treatment of postmenopausal hormone-dependent breast cancer. They have shown clear superiority compared with the conventional therapies and are therefore considered established second-line hormonal agents. Currently, they are being tested as first-line therapy in the metastatic, adjuvant, and neoadjuvant settings. Preliminary results suggest that the inhibitors might displace tamoxifen as first-line treatment, but further studies are needed to determine this. CONCLUSION: The role of aromatase inhibitors in premenopausal breast cancer and in combination with chemotherapy and other anticancer treatments are areas of future exploration. The ongoing adjuvant trials will provide important data on the long-term safety of aromatase inhibitors, which will help to determine their suitability for use as chemopreventives in healthy women at risk of developing breast cancer.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with metastatic cervical cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Xiaoyun Pan ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
John White ◽  
Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour ◽  
Christian Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Line Therapy

51 Background: In 2021, 14,480 patients are estimated to be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US; 16% of patients are expected to have metastatic disease for whom the 5-year survival rate is 17.6% per SEER estimates. Patients with metastatic cervical cancer (mCC) are treated mainly with systemic therapy. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, demographics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with mCC receiving systemic therapy. Methods: Eligible women had been diagnosed with cervical cancer, as evidenced by >2 outpatient or >1 inpatient claim in the Optum Research Database from January 2014 through January 2020. Patients were included if they had metastasis within 6 months before or after cervical cancer diagnosis, with evidence of systemic treatment on or after the latter of a claim date for cervical cancer disease or metastatic disease. The index date was the first-line treatment initiation date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of pre-index continuous enrollment. The top 3 treatment regimens and median treatment duration by line of therapy were described. All-cause per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs (2019 US dollars), including plan and patient paid amounts, were reported for full follow-up period from first-line and second-line therapy initiation. Results: The study sample consisted of 778 patients (mean age, 59 years; commercial, 58%; Medicare Advantage, 42%). The mean (median) follow-up period was 14 (9) months. Top baseline comorbidities were diseases of the urinary system (71%) and diseases of the female genital organs (70%), and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7. In the first line, 80% of patients received platinum-based therapy and 23% received bevacizumab (bev). Of 778 patients, only 294 (38%) received second-line therapy, with 34% receiving bev. Top first-line treatment regimens were carboplatin + paclitaxel (27%), cisplatin (21%), and bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (10%); the median (95% CI) duration of treatment was 3.4 (3.1-3.7) months. Top second-line treatment regimens were bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (13%), carboplatin + paclitaxel (11%), and pembrolizumab (6%); the median duration of treatment was 3.8 (3.1-4.2) months. Mean all-cause total PPPM costs were $19,519 from first-line and $22,660 second-line therapy initiation (table). Conclusions: This study indicates that real-world mCC patients have short treatment durations and significant economic burden with first-line and second-line therapy. Novel therapies associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with mCC may provide economic benefit.[Table: see text]

Impact on second-line treatment after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination chemotherapy in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer: Experience of the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20590-e20590
Author(s):  
Yuka Kato ◽  
Taku Noumi ◽  
Kazuhiko Saeki ◽  
Kiichiro Ninomiya ◽  
Toshio Kubo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Extensive Disease ◽  
To Receive ◽  
First Line Treatment

e20590 Background: For patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), amrubicin monotherapy is an important therapy in the treatment of recurrence, but there has been no adequate evaluation of how effective it actually is after failure of first-line chemotherapy including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Therefore, the purposes of this study are to determine the proportion of patients who received amrubicin monotherapy in the treatment of relapse after first-line treatment with ICI (arm A) and to investigate the efficacy of amrubicin therapy after arm A compared with after chemotherapy without ICI (arm B). Methods: Consecutive 40 pts with ED-SCLC NSCLC were retrospectively assessed who underwent ICI-containing chemotherapy (n = 19) or standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 21) in the 1st-line setting between 2017 and 2020. Results: In arm A, 3 of 19 patients (16%) were still on first-line ICI maintenance therapy, 2 (2/19; 11%) had ICI treatment adverse events (interstitial pneumonia, cardiopulmonary arrest), and 1 patient could not receive second-line therapy due to a decrease in performance status (PS) to 3. In arm B, 11 of 21 patients (52%) did not receive amrubicin as second-line therapy, including 1 patient with worsening PS, 1 patient with adverse events (hematologic toxicity), 1 patient refusal, and 6 patients with combination of ICI and chemotherapy. 23 patients (arm A; 13 (57%), arm B; 10 (43%)) were able to receive amrubicin monotherapy, including 7 patients (6 cases vs 1 case) were sensitive relapses, and 16 (7 vs 9 cases) were refractory relapses. There was no significant difference in either PFS or survival after first-line treatment in 16 patients with refractory relapse who received amrubicin as second-line treatment (PFS: 4.8 vs 5.2 months, p = 0.51), (median survival after first-line treatment: 9.6 vs 12.8, p = 0.75). Conclusions: Patients who received ICI in the first-line treatment were fully eligible to receive amrubicin in the second-line treatment. The recurrence pattern tended to be sensitive relapse and we found that the efficacy of amrubicin in refractory relapse was not affected by the administration of ICI in the first-line treatment.

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document