BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx...

14

Transcript of BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx...

Page 1: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,
Page 2: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

BR.21 Study Design

*2:1 RandomizationR

Stratified by:CentrePS, 0/1 vs 2/3Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD)Prior regimens, (1 vs 2)Prior platinum, (Yes vs no)

Placebo “150 mg” daily

Erlotinib* 150mg/day

Shepherd et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.

Page 3: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

BR.21 Progression-Free Survival

*Adjusted for stratification factors (except centre) AND EGFR status

SUMMARY STATISTICS:Log-Rank test for equality of groups: p=0.0000Wilcoxon test for equality of groups: p=0.0000Survival rate at 12 months for OSI-774: 8% - % C.I. ( 5%, 10%)Survival rate at 12 months for Placebo: 2% - % C.I. ( 0%, 4%)Hazard Ratio of Placebo/OSI-774: 1.572 - 95 % C.I. (1.337, 1.848)

OSI-774 Placebo

Perc

enta

ge

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (months) # At Risk(OSI-774) # At Risk(Placebo)

0.0488243

5.015334

10.0526

15.081

20.010Months

___ Erlotinib, _____ Placebo

2.2 mos 1.8 mos

*HR 0.61, p <0.0001

Shepherd et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.

Page 4: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

21%

31%

*HR and P-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization plus HER1/EGFR status.

BR.21: Overall Survival

42.5% improvement in median survival

Survival time (months)

Erlotinib

Placebo

HR=0.70 (95% CI, 0.58-0.85); P < 0.001*

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Surv

ival

dis

trib

ution

func

tion

Shepherd et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:123-132.

Page 5: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

IPASS Study Design

• Primary endpoint: PFS

• Secondary endpoints: ORR, OS, QoL and safety

Gefitinib 250mg/dayChemonaïve advanced NSCLC Adenocarcinoma Non-smoker or light smoker N = 1217 Paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, IV, d1)

plus carboplatin (AUC=5 or 6 mg/min) repeated every 3

weeks up to 6 cycles

R

Mok TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 3;361(10):947-57.

Page 6: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

IPASS: PFS and OS by Known EGFR Mutation StatusP

rob

abil

ity

of

pro

gre

ssio

n-f

ree

surv

ival

52

4 8 16 2412 20

Time from randomisation (months)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.00

PFS (2008)Gefitinib EGFR M+Gefitinib EGFR M-C / P EGFR M+C / P EGFR M-

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.00 4 8 12 16 20 44

Time from randomisation (months)P

rob

abil

ity

of

surv

ival

OS (2010)

24 28 32 36 40 48

Mutation +

Mutation -

Patients at risk excludes censored patients and those who have experienced an event

Yang CH et al. ESMO 2010

Page 7: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

INTEREST Study Design

aModified Hochberg procedure applied to control for multiple testingCT: chemotherapy; PS: performance status

Patients• Age ≥18 years

• Life expectancy≥8 weeks

• Progressive or recurrent disease following CT

• Considered candidates for further CT with docetaxel

• 1 or 2 CT regimens(≥1 platinum)

• PS 0-2

Primary• Overall survival(co-primary analysesa of non-inferiority in all patients and superiority in patients with high EGFR gene copy number)

Secondary• Progression-free survival• Objective response rate• Quality of life• Disease-related symptoms• Safety and tolerability

Exploratory• Biomarkers

Endpoints

IRESSA250 mg/day

IRESSA250 mg/day

Docetaxel74 mg.m2

every 3 weeks

Docetaxel74 mg.m2

every 3 weeks

1:1 randomization

Kim ES, et al. Lancet. 2008 Nov 22;372(9652):1809-18.

Page 8: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

INTEREST: Gefitinib vs. Docetaxel in NSCLC After Chemotherapy

OS in overall study population

Gefitinib demonstrated non-inferior survival compared with docetaxel

Kim ES, et al. Lancet. 2008 Nov 22;372(9652):1809-18.

0 36 40

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Months

Prob

abili

ty o

f sur

viva

l HR (96% CI) = 1.020 (0.905, 1.150)

OS in patients with high EGFR gene copy number

20

GefitinibDocetaxel

0 40Months

20

HR (95% CI) = 1.09 (0.78, 1.51)P = 0.6199

Page 9: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

SATURN Study Design

• Primary endpoint: PFS in all patients; PFS in patients with EGFR IHC-positive tumours

• Secondary endpoints: OS in ITT and EGFR-positive tumours, PFS in EGFR-negative tumours, time to progression, tumour response, QoL

Erlotinib 150mg/dayRun-in Period:• Patients with

advanced NSCLC• Treatment with

four cycles of platinum-doublet chemo

• N = 1949Placebo

REligibility:• No progressive

disease• N = 889

Cappuzzo F, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jun;11(6):521-9.

Page 10: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

SATURN: Erlotinib vs. Placebo in NSCLC After Chemotherapy

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Time (weeks)

PFS OS

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96

Time (weeks)

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96

Erlotinib (n=438)

Placebo (n=451)

Erlotinib (n=437)

Placebo (n=447)

HR=0.71 (0.62–0.82)Log-rank p<0.0001

HR=0.81 (0.70–0.95)Log-rank p=0.0088

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Cappuzzo F, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jun;11(6):521-9.

Page 11: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

SATURN: EGFR Activating Mutations

Time (weeks)

0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96

Pro

bab

ilit

y

HR=0.10 (0.04–0.25)Log-rank p<0.0001

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

PFS1

Erlotinib (n=22)

Placebo (n=27)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Time (months)

HR=0.83 (0.34–2.02)Log-rank p=0.6810

Erlotinib (n=22)

Placebo (n=27)

OS2

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

1. Cappuzzo F, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jun;11(6):521-9.

2. Brugger, et al. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4 (Suppl. 1):S348–9 (Abs. B9.1)

Page 12: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

PFS: Overall PopulationPFS: Overall Population Overall population

100908070605040302010

0

Pro

gre

ssio

n-f

ree

surv

ival

pro

bab

ilit

y (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Time (weeks)

Unstratified analysis:Hazard ratio = 0.681(95% CI: 0.490–0.945)Log-rank P-value = 0.019

PF299804 (n=94)Median: 12.4 weeks(95% CI: 8.3–16.1)

Erlotinib (n=94)Median: 8.3 weeks(95% CI: 8.0–11.4)

CI = confidence intervalPost-baseline tumor assessments were initiated at week 8 and conducted every 4 weeks thereafter.

Boyer et al ASCO 2010. Abstract LBA7523.

Dacomitinib versus Erlotinib Phase ll

Page 13: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

AFATINIB: PRECLINICAL ACTIVITYDrug IC50 (nM)

WT L858R Exon 19 Del L858R/T790M

Afatinib1 60 0.7 0.5 50

Erlotinib2 110 40 3.8 >4,000

Gefitinib3, 4 157 50 10-63 >4,000

PF-8045 29-63 7 2-4 119

1. Oncogene 2008;27:4702-4711. 2.Cancer Res 2006;66:8163-71. 3. Science 2004;304:1497. 4. JNCI 2005;97:1185-94. 5. Cancer Res 2007; 67:11924-32.

Page 14: BR.21 Study Design *2:1 Randomization R Stratified by: Centre PS, 0/1 vs 2/3 Response to prior Rx (CR/PR:SD:PD) Prior regimens, (1 vs 2) Prior platinum,

PFS by independent review

Statistically significant across almost all subgroups