875 resultados para RANDOMIZED PHASE-III
Resumo:
The FIT trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (0.4 mCi/kg; maximum dose 32 mCi) when used as consolidation of first complete or partial remission in patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients were randomly assigned to either 90Y-ibritumomab treatment (n = 207) or observation (n = 202) within 3 months (mo) of completing initial induction therapy (chemotherapy only: 86%; rituximab in combination with chemotherapy: 14%). Response status prior to randomization did not differ between the groups: 52% complete response (CR)/CR unconfirmed (CRu) to induction therapy and 48% partial response (PR) in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 53% CR/CRu and 44% PR in the control arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results from the first extended follow-up after a median of 3.5 years revealed a significant improvement in PFS from the time of randomization with 90Y-ibritumomab consolidation compared with control (36.5 vs 13.3 mo, respectively; P < 0.0001; Morschhauser et al. JCO. 2008; 26:5156-5164). Here we report a median follow-up of 66.2 mo (5.5 years). Five-year PFS was 47% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 29% in the control group (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.65; P < 0.0001). Median PFS in the 90Y-ibritumomab group was 49 mo vs 14 mo in the control group. In patients achieving a CR/CRu after induction, 5-year PFS was 57% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group, and the median had not yet been reached at 92 months, compared with a 43% 5-year PFS in the control group and a median of 31 mo (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.89). For patients in PR after induction, the 5-year PFS was 38% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group with a median PFS of 30 mo vs 14% in the control group with a median PFS of 6 mo (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53). Patients who had received rituximab as part of induction treatment had a 5-year PFS of 64% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 48% in the control group (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.30-1.47). For all patients, time to next treatment (as calculated from the date of randomization) differed significantly between both groups; median not reached at 99 mo in the 90Y-ibritumomab group vs 35 mo in the control group (P < 0.0001). The majority of patients received rituximab-containing regimens when treated after progression (63/82 [77%] in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 102/122 [84%] in the control group). Overall response rate to second-line treatment was 79% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group (57% CR/CRu and 22% PR) vs 78% in the control arm (59% CR/CRu, 19% PR). Five-year overall survival was not significantly different between the groups; 93% and 89% in the 90Y-ibritumomab and control groups, respectively (P = 0.561). To date, 40 patients have died; 18 in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 22 in the control group. Secondary malignancies were diagnosed in 16 patients in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 9 patients in the control arm (P = 0.19). There were 6 (3%) cases of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 1 MDS in the control arm (P = 0.063). In conclusion, this extended follow-up of the FIT trial confirms the benefit of 90Y-ibritumomab consolidation with a nearly 3 year advantage in median PFS. A significant 5-year PFS improvement was confirmed for patients with a CR/CRu or a PR after induction. Effective rescue treatment with rituximab-containing regimens may explain the observed no difference in overall survival between both patient groups who were - for the greater part - rituximab-naïve.
Resumo:
To compare the long-term outcome of treatment with concomitant cisplatin and hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus treatment with hyperfractionated radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer.
Resumo:
This secondary analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for severe late radiotherapy (RT)-related toxicity after treatment with hyperfractionated RT +/- concomitant cisplatin in locally advanced head and neck cancer.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES To analyze the prognostic value of clinical tumor response during chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS The locoregional response at 50.4Gy was assessed by physical examination (PE) in patients treated within the randomized trial SAKK 10/94 using hyperfractionated radiotherapy (RT), median total dose 74.4Gy with or without cisplatin 20mg/m(2) chemotherapy on 5 consecutive days during weeks 1 and 5 or 6 of RT. Response was classified as a complete response (CR), complete response with uncertainty (Cru), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) due to any cause. Secondary endpoints included locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards (PH) models were applied to analyze the associations between survival endpoints and clinical tumor response. RESULTS A total of 136, 131 and 97 patients were evaluable for response at the primary tumor, lymph nodes and both sites combined, respectively. At 50.4Gy 57/136 (42%), 46/131 (35%) and 21/97 (22%) patients had a good response (CR/Cru vs. PR/SD) at the primary tumor, the lymph nodes, and both sites combined, respectively. The median follow-up times were 11.4, 9.6 and 11.4years for the three groups. Good responses were all significantly associated with improved TTF, LRRFS, DMFS and OS in univariate analysis whereas good response at the primary tumor and lymph nodes remained significantly associated with TTF and OS after multivariate Cox PH models. CONCLUSIONS Locoregional response at 50.4Gy was identified as predictor of oncologic outcome. PE during treatment should not be underestimated in clinical practice.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND To analyze the impact of weight loss before and during chemoradiation on survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. METHODS From 07/1994-07/2000 a total of 224 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were randomized to either hyperfractionated radiation therapy alone or the same radiation therapy combined with two cycles of concomitant cisplatin. The primary endpoint was time to any treatment failure (TTF); secondary endpoints were locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient weight was measured 6 months before treatment, at treatment start and treatment end. RESULTS The proportion of patients with >5% weight loss was 32% before, and 51% during treatment, and the proportion of patients with >10% weight loss was 12% before, and 17% during treatment. After a median follow-up of 9.5 years (range, 0.1 - 15.4 years) weight loss before treatment was associated with decreased TTF, LRRFS, DMFS, cancer specific survival and OS in a multivariable analysis. However, weight loss during treatment was not associated with survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Weight loss before and during chemoradiation was commonly observed. Weight loss before but not during treatment was associated with worse survival.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard option for first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. We assessed whether no continuation is non-inferior to continuation of bevacizumab after completing first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In an open-label, phase III multicentre trial, patients with mCRC without disease progression after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomly assigned to continuing bevacizumab at a standard dose or no treatment. CT scans were done every 6 weeks until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A non-inferiority limit for hazard ratio (HR) of 0.727 was chosen to detect a difference in TTP of 6 weeks or less, with a one-sided significance level of 10% and a statistical power of 85%. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population comprised 262 patients: median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median TTP was 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-5.4] months for bevacizumab continuation versus 2.9 (95% CI 2.8-3.8) months for no continuation; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96). Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The median overall survival was 25.4 months for bevacizumab continuation versus 23.8 months (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63-1.1; P = 0.2) for no continuation. Severe adverse events were uncommon in the bevacizumab continuation arm. Costs for bevacizumab continuation were estimated to be ∼30,000 USD per patient. CONCLUSIONS Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for treatment holidays versus continuing bevacizumab monotheray, after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Based on no impact on overall survival and increased treatment costs, bevacizumab as a single agent is of no meaningful therapeutic value. More efficient treatment approaches are needed to maintain control of stabilized disease following induction therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00544700.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: To analyze final long-term survival and clinical outcomes from the randomized phase III study of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients after imatinib failure; to assess correlative angiogenesis biomarkers with patient outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Blinded sunitinib or placebo was given daily on a 4-week-on/2-week-off treatment schedule. Placebo-assigned patients could cross over to sunitinib at disease progression/study unblinding. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using conventional statistical methods and the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method to explore cross-over impact. Circulating levels of angiogenesis biomarkers were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 243 patients were randomized to receive sunitinib and 118 to placebo, 103 of whom crossed over to open-label sunitinib. Conventional statistical analysis showed that OS converged in the sunitinib and placebo arms (median 72.7 vs. 64.9 weeks; HR, 0.876; P = 0.306) as expected, given the cross-over design. RPSFT analysis estimated median OS for placebo of 39.0 weeks (HR, 0.505, 95% CI, 0.262-1.134; P = 0.306). No new safety concerns emerged with extended sunitinib treatment. No consistent associations were found between the pharmacodynamics of angiogenesis-related plasma proteins during sunitinib treatment and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-over design provided evidence of sunitinib clinical benefit based on prolonged time to tumor progression during the double-blind phase of this trial. As expected, following cross-over, there was no statistical difference in OS. RPSFT analysis modeled the absence of cross-over, estimating a substantial sunitinib OS benefit relative to placebo. Long-term sunitinib treatment was tolerated without new adverse events.
Resumo:
PURPOSE In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor exemestane is partially non-cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease-free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety. RESULTS In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease-free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms. CONCLUSION This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
Resumo:
Purpose Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. Patients and Methods Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. Results Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P lt; .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P lt; .001) and dyspnea (P = .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P = .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P lt; .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P = .01). Conclusion In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.
Resumo:
We present the treatment rationale and study design of the MetLung phase III study. This study will investigate onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with erlotinib compared with erlotinib alone, as second- or third-line treatment, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are Met-positive by immunohistochemistry. Approximately 490 patients (245 per treatment arm) will receive erlotinib (150 mg oral daily) plus onartuzumab or placebo (15 mg/kg intravenous every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient or physician decision to discontinue, or death. The efficacy objectives of this study are to compare overall survival (OS) (primary endpoint), progression-free survival, and response rates between the 2 treatment arms. In addition, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics, and translational research will be investigated across treatment arms. If the primary objective (OS) is achieved, this study will provide robust results toward an alternative treatment option for patients with Met-positive second- or third-line NSCLC. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.