RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL OF TRABECTEDIN VERSUS DOXORUBICIN- BASED CHEMOTHERAPY AS FIRST-LINE...
-
Upload
lynn-greer -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL OF TRABECTEDIN VERSUS DOXORUBICIN- BASED CHEMOTHERAPY AS FIRST-LINE...
RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL OF TRABECTEDIN VERSUS DOXORUBICIN-BASED CHEMOTHERAPY AS FIRST-LINE THERAPY IN TRANSLOCATION-RELATED SARCOMAS (TRS)
Sant P. Chawla, Andrew Hendifar, Michael Leahy, Antoine Italiano, Shreyaskumar Patel, Peter Hohenberger, Armando Santoro, Arthur P. Staddon, Nicolas Penel, Sophie Piperno-Neumann, Pilar Lardelli, Antonio Nieto, Carmen Kahatt, Jean-Yves Blay
Study Design
An adaptive design in chemonaïve patients with advanced TRS, stratified by performance status and subtype, then randomized to receive:
Trabectedin: 1.5 mg/m2 in 24h iv infusion q3wk Doxorubicin based chemotherapy (DXCT): single agent
75 mg/m2 q3wk, or 60 mg/m2 combined with ifosfamide 6-9 g/m2 q3wk
MRCL (n= 40) Other TRS (n= 40)
RANDOMIZATION (1:1)
Eligible patients
PS= 0 PS= 1-2 PS= 0 PS= 1-2
Study Objectives
Primary: Progression free survival (PFS) of trabectedin vs DXCT Secondary:
PFS at 6 months Response rate (RR) Overall survival Safety
PFS/RR analyzed by investigator assessment for all randomized patients
PFS/RR analyzed by independent review only for confirmed TRS patients
Results: Baseline Characteristics
Trabectedin (n=61) DXCT (n=60)
Age (yr) Median (range) 47 (19-78) 49 (19-78)
Sex Male / female 36 (59%) / 25 (41%) 38 (63%) / 22 (37%)
ECOG PS 0 28 (46%) 29 (48%)
1 32 (52%) 30 (50%)
2 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Sarcoma type by Investigator
MRCL 28 (46%) 28 (47%)
Other 33 (54%) 32 (53%)
Sarcoma type by central pathology
MRCL 23 (38%) 17 (28%)
Other 28 (46%) 20 (33%)
Not confirmed* 10 (16%) 23 (38%)
* Wrong diagnosis 4 (7%) and 9 (15%) patients of the trabectedin and DXCT arms, no evidence of translocation in 3 (5%) and 2 (3%) patients, and lack of
available material for central review in 3 (5%) and 12 (20%) patients
Histology According Central Diagnosis (TRS Confirmed Patients N=88)
Trabectedin (n=51)
DXCT(n=37)
N % N %
MYXOID LIPOSARCOMA 23 45.1 17 45.9
SYNOVIAL SARCOMA 15 29.4 9 24.3
ALVEOLAR SOFT PART SARCOMA 2 3.9 2 5.4
CLEAR CELL SARCOMA 3 5.9 4 10.8
DESMOPLASTIC SMALL ROUND CELL 1 2.0 1 2.7
EXTRASKELETAL MYXOID CHONDROSARCOMA 5 9.8 2 5.4
LOW GRADE ENDOMETRIAL STROMAL SARCOMA 1 2.0 2 5.4
LOW GRADE FIBROMYXOID SARCOMA 1 2.0 . .
Results: Baseline Characteristics
Trabectedin (n=61) DXCT (n=60)
Disease Extension Locally advanced 18 (30%) 13 (22%)
Metastatic 43 (70%) 47 (78%)
Prior surgery (radical/palliative) 33 (54%) 38 (63%)
Prior radiotherapy 24 (39%) 21 (35%)
Number of sites involved at baseline, Median (range) 2 (1-8) 2 (1-5)
Months from first diagnosis to randomization, Median (range) 10 (1-187) 8 (0-310)
Patient Exposure
Trabectedin (n=61) DXCT (n=57)Number of cycles 441 264Number of cycles per patientMedian (range)
5 (1-31) 6 (1-8)
Doxorubicin single agent
(n=36)
Doxorubicin plus ifosfamide
(n=21)
Number of cycles per patientMedian (range)
6 (1-8) 4 (1-8)
Time on treatment (weeks) Median (range)
19.3 (2.4-101.7) 19.2 (4.1-25.6) 14.3 (4.3-26.3)
Censoring
A high percentage of patients were censored in both arms Main reasons for censoring:
Surgical removal of lesions 24% in trabectedin arm and 16% in the DXCT arm
Administration of a new anticancer therapy (chemotherapy or radiotherapy) before progression of the disease
18% in trabectedin arm and 24% in DXCT arm Importantly, 35-40% patients in either arm ended up receiving
the drug in the other arm Patients in trabectedin arm also received DXCT Patients in DXCT arm also received trabectedin
Results: Response Rate
Investigator Assessment All randomized patients
Trabectedin (n=61) DXCT (n=60)
Best objective response (RECIST)
PR 5 (8%) 15 (25%) 0.0150
SD 40 (66%) 33 (55%)
DCR 45 (74%) 48 (80%)
PD 11 (18%) 8 (13%)
NE 5 (8%) 4 (7%)
Results: Response Rate
Independent Review TRS confirmed patients
Trabectedin (n=51)
DXCT (n=37)
p-value
Best objective response (RECIST)
PR 3 (6%) 10 (27%) 0.0123
SD 39 (77%) 22 (60%)
DCR 42 (82%) 32 (87%)
PD 6 (12%) 1 (3%)
NE 3 (6%) 4 (11%)
Histology of PR patients2 MRCL
1 Synovial
5 MRCL4 Synovial
1 Desmoplastic Round cell
Cu
mu
lative
pro
ba
bili
ty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Time (months)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Trabectedin (N=61 C=32)DXCT (N=60 C=34)Censored
Median: 16.1 months (95% CI, 5.5-21.9)
Hazard ratio: 0.85, p=0.5551. Log rank p=0.5533
Median: 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.5-12.7)
Results: PFS by Investigators
Results: PFS by Independent Review
Cu
mu
lative
pro
ba
bili
ty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Time (months)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Trabectedin (N=51 C=35)DXCT (N=37 C=24)Censored
Hazard ratio: 0.86; p=0.6992. Stratified log-rank p=0.9573
Median: 18.8 months (95% CI, 5.7-not reached)
Median: 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-25.0)
Results: Overall SurvivalC
um
ula
tive
pro
ba
bility
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Time (months)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Trabectedin (N=61 C=39)DXCT (N=60 C=35)Censored
Median: 27.3 months (95% CI, 21.3-39.6)
Median: 38.9 months (95% CI, 24.2-nr)
Hazard ratio: 0.77, p=0.3672. Log rank p=0.3659
OS in Myxoid Liposarcoma
Median: 95% CI (-)
Median: 33.1 95% CI (21.2-39.6)
Hazard ratio: 0.25, p=0.0453. Log rank p=0.0314
Results: Hematologic and Other Laboratory Toxicity
Trabectedin DXCT
Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3-4 (%) Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3-4 (%)
Laboratory disorders
Neutropenia 25.0% 55.0% 10.7% 75%
Febrile neutropenia - 1.6% - 12.3%
Thrombocytopenia 26.2% 16.4% 37.5% 14.3%
ALT increase 40.0% 53.3% 37.0% 1.9%
AST increase 51.7% 33.3% 37.0% 1.9%
ALKP increase 56.7% 5.0% 38.9% -
Bilirubin increase 20.0% 1.7% 13.0% -
CPK increase 34.5% 8.6% 8.2% 4.1%
Results: Non-Hematologic Toxicity
Trabectedin DXCT
Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3-4 (%) Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3-4 (%)
Treatment related AEs
Fatigue 59.0% 6.5% 61.4% 1.8%
Nausea 68.9% 1.6% 64.9% -
Vomiting 42.6% 1.6% 26.3% -
Mucositis 4.9% 1.6% 26.3% 8.8%
Alopecia 1.6% - 43.9% -
Summary
The study was underpowered to detect any statistical significant differences in the two arms due to high rate of censoring in both arms
Overall, no statistically significant differences in PFS/OS were observed
Median PFS was 19 mo. in trabectedin arm vs. 8 mo. in DXCT arm Median OS was 39 mo. in trabectedin arm vs. 27 mo. in DXCT arm
Safety profiles for trabectedin and DXCT were consistent with previous studies
Ability to administer trabectedin over prolonged periods without cumulative toxicity may allow for longer disease control
Trabectedin should be further explored in a definitive randomized study in myxoid liposarcoma patients
BACK-UP SLIDES
Censoring ReasonsEfficacy population
Trabectedin (n=51) DXCT (n=37)
Surgery 12 (24%) 6 (16%)
Chemotherapy 6 (12%) 7 (19%)
Radiotherapy 3 (6%) 2 (5%)
Last tumor assessmenta 12 (24%) 5 (14%)
Otherb 2 (4%) 4 (11%)
Total 35 (69%) 24 (65%)
All randomized patients
Trabectedin (n=61) DXCT(n=60)
Surgery 11 (18%) 12 (20%)
Chemotherapy 5 (8%) 4 (7%)
Radiotherapy 3 (5%) 6 (10%)
Last tumor assessmenta 9 (15%) 6 (10%)
Otherb 4 (7%) 6 (10%)
Total 32 (52%) 34 (57%)
a Patients on follow-up for disease assessment or with event/subsequent therapy out of study window or without PD at last tumor assessment available in database at cut-off date.b Censored at randomization (e.g.: untreated) or withdrawn due to related/unrelated adverse event or refusal before treatment onset/disease progression or new treatment out of study window.
Subsequent Chemotherapy Agents in Censored Patients
Trabectedin(n=35)
DXCT (n=24)
N % N %
CEDIRANIB . . 1 4.2
CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE 2 5.7 2 8.3
DACARBAZINE 2 5.7 2 8.3
DOCETAXEL 3 8.6 2 8.3
DOXORUBICIN 10 28.6 3 12.5
DOXORUBICIN HYDROCHLORIDE 3 8.6 2 8.3
EPIRUBICIN 1 2.9 . .
ETOPOSIDE 1 2.9 2 8.3
GEMCITABINE 5 14.3 3 12.5
IFOSFAMIDE 6 17.1 8 33.3
PAZOPANIB . . 1 4.2
SORAFENIB 1 2.9 1 4.2
SORAFENIB TOSILATE . . 1 4.2
SUNITINIB 1 2.9 2 8.3
TRABECTEDIN 4 11.4 9 37.5
VINORELBINE 1 2.9 . .
VORINOSTAT . . 1 4.2
Responders’ Histology
Patient Treatment arm Central Diagnosis
103013 Trabectedin Synovial sarcoma
182003 Trabectedin Myxoid liposarcoma
21021 Trabectedin Myxoid liposarcoma
103008 DXCT Synovial sarcoma
14034 DXCT Desmoplastic small round cell sarcoma
184025 DXCT Synovial sarcoma
191006 DXCT Myxoid liposarcoma
221011 DXCT Myxoid liposarcoma
33014 DXCT Synovial sarcoma
44016 DXCT Synovial sarcoma
71020 DXCT Myxoid liposarcoma
71026 DXCT Myxoid liposarcoma
72011 DXCT Myxoid liposarcoma
Discontinuations and Dose Reductions
Trabectedin (n=61)
DXCT (n=57)
n % N %Deaths associated with treatment-related AEs
1 1.6 1 1.8
Discontinuations associated with treatment-related AEs
10 16.4 6 10.5
Delays associated with treatment-related AEs
32 52.5 8 14.0
Dose reductions associated with treatment-related AEs
24 39.4 6 10.5
• Administration delays and dose reductions occurred more frequently in the trabectedin arm, partially due to the prolonged treatment duration.
• Transaminase increase was the main reason for dose reduction
• Neutropenia was the most common cause of administration delay.
Results: Safety in DXCT
DXCT+Ifosfamide (n=21) DXCT (n=36)
Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3 (%) Grade 4 (%) Grade1-2 (%) Grade 3 (%) Grade 4(%)
Treatment related AEs
Fatigue 57.1% - - 63.9% 2.8% -
Nausea 52.4% - - 72.2% - -
Vomiting 19.0% - - 30.6% - -
Mucositis 9.5% - 4.8% 36.1% 11.1% -
Alopecia 38.1% - - 47.2% - -
Febrile neutropenia - 9.5% 14.3% - 5.6% -
Laboratory disorders
Neutropenia 23.8% 4.8% 42.9% 2.9% 34.3% 57.1%
Thrombocytopenia 23.8% 19.0% 9.5% 45.7% 5.7% -
ALT increase 31.6% 5.3% - 40.0% - -
AST increase 26.3% 5.3% - 42.9% - -
Alkaline phosphatase increase
52.6% - - 31.4% - -
Bilirubin increase 10.5% - - 14.3% - -
CPK increase - 5.9% - 12.5% 3.1% -