RAISE: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase III study of irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab (RAM) or placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) progressive during or following fi
512 Background: Angiogenesis is an important therapeutic target in CRC; VEGF plays a key role in angiogenesis. RAM is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. The RAISE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding RAM to standard second-line treatment FOLFIRI. Methods: Eligible pts with mCRC who progressed on or after first-line combination therapy with bev, ox, and fp, had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function were randomized 1:1 (stratified by region, KRAS mutation status, and time to progressive disease [PD] after beginning first-line treatment) to receive RAM (8 mg/kg IV) plus FOLFIRI or PBO plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until PD, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Planned sample size of 1,050 pts ensured 85% power to demonstrate statistical significance at an overall two-sided alpha of 0.05, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8. Results: Between Dec 2010 and Aug 2013, 1,072 eligible pts were randomized (RAM 536; PBO 536). Baseline pt characteristics were similar between treatment arms. The OS HR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.98; log-rank p=0.0219). Median OS was 13.3months (m) for RAM vs 11.7m for PBO. The PFS HR was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.90; log-rank p = 0.0005). Median PFS with RAM was 5.7m and 4.5m for PBO. ORR was 13.4% RAM; 12.5% PBO (p = 0.6336). Subgroup results were consistent with the OS and PFS results. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurring in >5% of pts in RAM+FOLFIRI were: neutropenia (RAM 38.4% vs PBO 23.3% ), hypertension (11.2% vs 2.8%), diarrhea (10.8% vs 9.7%), and fatigue (11.5% vs 7.8%). Conclusions: RAISE met its primary end-point, demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in OS for RAM and FOLFIRI vs PBO and FOLFIRI in second-line mCRC pts. Benefits were similar across important clinical subgroups and no unexpected AEs were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT01183780.
Safety of bevacizumab (BV) among patients (pts) receiving first-line chemotherapy (CT) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Preliminary results from a larger registry in the U.S
Effectiveness and safety of second-line (2L) irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens after first-line (1L) bevacizumab (BV)-containing treatment (tx) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Results from the ARIES observational cohort study.
535 Background: Prior ARIES analyses showed that BV-treated mCRC patients (pts) receiving chemotherapy (CT)/biologics + BV within 2 months (mo) after 1st progressive disease (PD) had longer post-progression survival (PPS) than pts receiving only CT/biologics. The present analysis evaluated whether this effect of BV was consistent when used with common 2L CT regimens— irinotecan- (iri-) and oxaliplatin- (ox-) based—in mCRC pts exposed to 1L BV in ARIES. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving 1L CT + BV. No tx regimens or assessments were protocol specified. This analysis evaluated 1L BV-treated mCRC pts who had PD, survived ≥2 mo after PD, and received 2L iri- or ox-based tx. PPS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), while adjusting for covariates (eg, 1L time to progression). Results: Of 1550 1L pts in ARIES, 1074 had 1st PD and survived ≥2 mo after PD. Of these 1074, 390 and 114 received 2L iri- and ox-based tx, respectively, ± BV ( table ). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. The incidence of targeted adverse events (TAEs) was as expected and similar between the BV and No BV groups over time. In pts receiving 2L iri- or ox-based CT tx, PPS in BV-treated pts was longer compared to those not on BV. Analyses may be limited by small pt numbers in some groups. Conclusions: Consistent with prior ARIES analyses, the continued use of BV after 1st PD was associated with prolonged PPS regardless of the 2L CT backbone used. [Table: see text]
Similarities in treatment (Tx) patterns and clinical outcomes (CO) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) initially treated with FOLFOX/BV or FOLFIRI/BV: Results from ARIES, a bevacizumab (BV) observational study.
480 Background: COs associated with varying Tx patterns in mCRC pts are poorly understood because patterns diverge from the randomized trials (RCT). The RCTs of BV (Avastin) plus chemotherapy (CT) in mCRC pts continued BV until progressive disease (PD), even if CT was stopped/changed. Some RCTs of BV+CT in mCRC show ∼50% of pts stopping Tx early for reasons other than PD with possible lessening of benefit. It is unclear if this is due to use of a particular CT regimen or other practice pattern. While the beneficial effect of post-PD BV Tx has been shown in ARIES (HR 0.52 BBP vs No BBP) [A Cohn, ASCO 2010], the effect of stopping BV or CT before PD is unclear. ARIES, a community based observational study with a large cohort of 1st line BV-treated mCRC pts, will assess the COs associated with different 1st line Tx patterns (BV and CT) based on real world practice. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving first- or second-line CT+BV. No Tx regimens or assessments are protocol specified. Data are collected prospectively at baseline (BL) and quarterly. Analyses included first-line pts with PD. Tx patterns of pts initially treated with FOLFOX/BV or FOLFIRI/BV are described and preliminary COs (PFS and OS) are estimated from K-M curves. Tx duration is calculated from enrollment date. Results: As of 2/5/10, 1,548 first-line mCRC pts enrolled (median follow up = 21 m); 1,133 pts had PD. Of 1,133 pts with PD, most had FOLFOX/BV (63%) or FOLFIRI/BV (16%) as first CT. BL characteristics were similar, but the FOLFOX/BV group had more stage 4 pts (74%). Main reasons for stopping BV include AE, max benefit achieved and CT holiday. Tx patterns and COs are in the table. Conclusions: ARIES first-line mCRC pts treated with FOLFOX/BV or FOLFIRI/BV had similar Tx patterns and COs despite the common opinion that they may differ in tolerability and possibly effectiveness. Additional analyses will assess the impact of stopping BV and/or CT before PD. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
Randomized Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine Plus TH-302 Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Purpose TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m2 (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m2 (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. Results Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (−5,398 v −549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302–related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. Conclusion PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).
Bevacizumab exposure beyond first disease progression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analyses of the ARIES observational cohort study
A Multicenter, Phase I, Dose-Escalation Study to Assess the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Etirinotecan Pegol in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors
Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Initially Treated with FOLFOX–Bevacizumab or FOLFIRI–Bevacizumab: Results From ARIES, a Bevacizumab Observational Cohort Study
Abstract Background. The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. Methods. The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. Conclusions. In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.
Abstract LB-121: Randomized phase II study of the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine + TH-302 (G+T) vs gemcitabine (G) alone in previously untreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer
Abstract A hypoxic microenvironment is believed to be a characteristic of solid tumors including pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) and is associated with resistance to chemotherapy. The hypoxia-activated prodrug, TH-302, is designed to specifically target the hypoxic microenvironment. Combining G with TH-302 may enable the targeting of both the normoxic and hypoxic regions of PAC. TH-302 was investigated with full-dose G as part of a Phase 1/2 study with a 21% response, median PFS and OS of 5.9 and 8.5 months, respectively, and one-year survival of >40%. Based upon these data, a randomized Phase 2B study (NCT01144455) was conducted to assess the benefit of G+T to standard dose G for first-line therapy of PAC. An open-label multi-center study of two dose levels of TH-302 (240 mg/m2 or 340 mg/m2) in combination with G versus G alone (randomized 1:1:1) was initiated in June 2010. G (1000 mg/m2) and T were administered IV over 30-60 minutes on Days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients on the G arm could crossover after progression and be randomized to a G+T arm. The primary efficacy endpoint is a comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) between the combination arms and G alone (80% power to detect 50% improvement in PFS with one-sided alpha of 10%). 214 pts (69 G: 71 G+T240: 74 G+T340) with advanced PAC including 77% distant metastases, 62% involving liver and 11% with prior adjuvant tx; median age: 65 (range 29-86); 126 M/88 F; 79/128 ECOG 0/1. Median cycles received: G - 4, G+T240 - 5, G+T340 - 6. Median PFS was 3.6 mo in G vs 5.6 mo in G+T arms with HR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.43 - 0.87) and logrank p-value of 0.005. Median PFS in G + T340 was 6.0 mo. RECIST best response was 12% in G, 17% in G+T 240 and 27% in G+T340. 153 (71%) patients had elevated CA19-9 and follow-up. CA19-9 decreases were significantly greater in the G+T groups and greatest in the G+T340 arm which had 37 of 53 (70%) pts with a greater than 50% CA19-9 decrease. One death (suicide) was considered possibly related to study drug. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were: 16% G, 15% G+T240 and 11% G+T340. Serious adverse events were balanced across the treatment arms. The most common non-laboratory events, fatigue (49%), nausea (43%), constipation (34%) and peripheral edema (38%), were similar across groups. Rash (14% G, 39% G+T240 and 45% G+T340) and stomatitis (6% G, 17% G+T240 and 36% G+T340) were significantly greater with G+T combination but no Grd 4 (4 pts with Grade 3). Grd 3/4 thrombocytopenia (11% G, 39% G+T240 and 59% G+T340) and Grd 3/4 neutropenia (28% G, 56% G+T240 and 59% G+T340) were higher with G+T. G+T combination with full dose G improved the efficacy of G with significantly longer PFS, higher response rate and greater CA19-9 declines. The G+T combination was well tolerated. Skin and mucosal toxicity and myelosuppression were the most common related adverse events with no increase in treatment discontinuation. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-121. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-121