Predictive value of skin-toxicity severity for response to panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a pooled analysis of 5 clinical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) vs FOLFIRI plus bev
Advertisements

Berlin et al. ESMO 2006 Safety and Efficacy of Panitumumab Monotherapy in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) – Summary of Results Across.
Humblet ASCO 2007 – Draft CONFIDENTIAL Association of skin toxicity (ST) severity with clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with.
Robertson JFR et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(27):
Herceptin® (trastuzumab) in combination with chemotherapy: pivotal metastatic breast cancer survival data 1.
Efficacy and Safety of Conatumumab Plus AMG 479 in Patients With Advanced Sarcoma S Chawla,1 AC Lockhart,2 N Azad,3 E Elez,4 F Galimi,5 N Baker,6 YJ.
Fabio Puglisi Dipartimento di Oncologia Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Udine Antiangiogenic Treatment Mediterranean School of Oncology.
Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine plus Cetuximab versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Southwest.
A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Registration Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Placebo + Trastuzumab + Docetaxel vs.
1 Phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine and carboplatin followed by paclitaxel as first-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma Presented by.
Clinicaloptions.com/oncology Expert Insight Into the First-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer N016966: Efficacy Results  PFS significantly.
Xeloda ® plus oxaliplatin: rationale in colorectal cancer (CRC)  Oxaliplatin is active in CRC, especially when combined with 5-FU/leucovorin (LV)  Superior.
Van Cutsem E et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract LBA4509. (Oral Presentation)
Is surgical resection of an asymptomatic primary colorectal tumor beneficial for patients with incurable Stage IV disease? A Phase II Trial of 5-Fluorouracil,
Hecht ASCO GI 2008 An updated analysis of safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin (Ox)/bevacizumab (bev) +/- panitumumab (pmab) for 1 st ‑ line treatment (tx)
Capecitabine versus Bolus 5-FU/Leucovorin as Adjuvant Therapy for Colon Cancer: X-ACT Trial Results James Cassidy, MD Colorectal Cancer Update Think Tank.
Herceptin ® : leading the way in metastatic breast cancer care Steffen Kahlert.
*University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
Phase III Trial of Pazopanib in Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Sternberg CN et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract (Oral Presentation)
ASCO 2011 A. Sobrero, 1 M. Peeters, 2 T. Price, 3 Y. Hotko, 4 A. Cervantes, 5 M. Ducreux, 6 T. André, 7 E. Chan, 8 F. Lordick 9 Y. Tian, 10 R. Sidhu 10.
Cetuximab + Cisplatin in Estrogen Receptor-Negative, Progesterone Receptor-Negative, HER2-Negative (Triple-Negative) Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results.
1Bachelot T et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S1-6.
Axel Grothey, MD Professor of Oncology Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota Strategies to Improve Patient Outcomes in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction.
Phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without irinotecan in the front-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in elderly patients. FFCD
Response rate using conventional criteria is a poor surrogate for clinical benefit on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal.
Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing FOLFIRINOX (F: 5FU/Leucovorin [LV], Irinotecan [I], and Oxaliplatin [O]) versus Gemcitabine (G) as First-Line Treatment.
T Andre, E Quinaux, C Louvet, E Gamelin, O Bouche, E Achille, P Piedbois, N Tubiana-Mathieu, M Buyse and A de Gramont. Updated results at 6 year of the.
American Society of Clinical Oncology 2009 Final STEPP results of prophylactic versus reactive skin toxicity (ST) treatment (tx) for panitumumab (pmab)-related.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
MABEL – a large multinational study of cetuximab plus irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer progressing on irinotecan H Wilke, R Glynne-Jones, J Thaler,
KRAS status and efficacy in the first- line treatment of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience Carsten.
Results From Panitumumab Regimen Evaluation in Colorectal Cancer to Estimate Primary Response to Treatment (PRECEPT): Second-Line Treatment With Panitumumab.
AVADO TRIAL David Miles Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, United Kingdom A randomized, double-blind study of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel.
Cmab might have therapeutic benefit in Japanese patients with KRAS p.G13D mutant colorectal cancer. Limitations of this study are its retrospective design.
Preliminary Results from a Phase II study of FOLFIRI and Bevacizumab as First Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (Abstract #3579) S. Kopetz,
Updated results of STEPP, a phase 2, open‑label study of pre-emptive versus reactive skin toxicity treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.
Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.
Monoclonal Antibodies EGFR Inhibitors for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Where are we and What’s next Discussion of Abstracts Jeffrey Meyerhardt,
ASCO 2010 CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of panitumumab (pmab) with FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI alone as 2nd ‑ line treatment.
A Randomized, Phase 1/2 Trial of AMG 102 or AMG 479 in Combination With Panitumumab vs Panitumumab Alone in Patients With Wild ‑ Type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal.
Phase II trial of irinotecan/docetaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer with randomization between irinotecan/docetaxel and irinotecan/docetaxel plus C225,
Phase II trial of irinotecan/docetaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer with randomization between irinotecan/docetaxel and irinotecan/docetaxel plus C225,
KRAS status (wild-type vs mutant) correlates with efficacy to first-line cetuximab in a study of cetuximab single agent followed by cetuximab + FOLFIRI.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Low Dose Decitabine Versus Best Supportive Care in Elderly Patients with Intermediate or High Risk MDS Not Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: Final Results.
P.A. Tang 1, S. J. Cohen 1, G. Bjarnason 1, C. Kollmannsberger 1, K. Virik 1, M. J. MacKenzie 1, J. Brown 1, L. Wang 1, A. Chen 2, M. J. Moore 1 1 Princess.
A Discussion on Biologic Agents in Gastric Cancer Treatment Yoon-Koo Kang, MD Professor of Medicine Asan Medical Center University of Ulsan College of.
1 A Randomized, Multi-Center Phase III Trial of Irinotecan in Combination with Three Different Methods of Administration of Fluoropyrimidine with Celecoxib.
Panitumumab Advanced Colorectal Cancer Evaluation (PACCE) Update Authors: Hecht et al at ASCO GI 2008 Date posted: April
ASCO 2011 Final Results From PRIME: Randomized Phase 3 Study of Panitumumab (pmab) With FOLFOX4 for 1st ‑ line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) Jean.
A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study of Eribulin Mesylate versus Capecitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast.
Mok TS, Wu SL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361: Gefitinib Superior.
Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine Compared with Gemcitabine Alone in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute.
J Clin Oncol 28: R2 소예리 / Prof. 이재진. INTRODUCTION EGFR is overexpressed in 70-80% of pts with advanced colorectal cancer EGFR dysregulation:
Phase I/II CheckMate 032: Nivolumab ± Ipilimumab in Advanced SCLC
A Single-Arm Phase IIIb Study of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab with a Taxane as First-Line Therapy for Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Farletuzumab in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer with low CA125
Phase III Trial (MPACT) of Weekly nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Influence of Prognostic Factors of Survival J Tabernero,
KEYNOTE-012: Durable Efficacy With Pembrolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Gastric Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
Intervista a Lucio Crinò
Barrios C et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 46.
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
Cetuximab with chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies according to KRAS.
KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The.
R Hermann6, P Sportelli7, L Gardner7 and J Bendell8
1University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium;
Presentation transcript:

Predictive value of skin-toxicity severity for response to panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a pooled analysis of 5 clinical trials Jordan Berlin, 1 Eric Van Cutsem, 2 Marc Peeters, 3 J. Randolph Hecht, 4 Rolando Ruiz, 5 Mike Wolf, 5 Rafael G. Amado, 5 Neal J. Meropol 6 1 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; 2 University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; 3 Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; 4 UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA; 5 Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; 6 Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

Introduction Panitumumab is a high-affinity (K d = 5  10 −11 M), fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr). 1 Panitumumab is a high-affinity (K d = 5  10 −11 M), fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr). 1 Panitumumab is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with disease progression during or following fluoropyrimidine-, irinotecan-, and oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. 2 Panitumumab is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with disease progression during or following fluoropyrimidine-, irinotecan-, and oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. 2 A recent analysis of safety data from 789 patients enrolled in 10 clinical studies indicated that panitumumab is well tolerated in patients with mCRC. 3 A recent analysis of safety data from 789 patients enrolled in 10 clinical studies indicated that panitumumab is well tolerated in patients with mCRC. 3 The most common adverse events associated with panitumumab monotherapy were skin-related toxicities. 3 The most common adverse events associated with panitumumab monotherapy were skin-related toxicities. 3 Here we present the results of an exploratory analysis examining the association between skin-related toxicities and panitumumab efficacy as well as the predictive value of skin toxicity severity for response to panitumumab in pooled data for 727 patients from 5 clinical studies of panitumumab monotherapy. Here we present the results of an exploratory analysis examining the association between skin-related toxicities and panitumumab efficacy as well as the predictive value of skin toxicity severity for response to panitumumab in pooled data for 727 patients from 5 clinical studies of panitumumab monotherapy.

Objectives An exploratory analysis on pooled data from 5 clinical studies of panitumumab monotherapy to: An exploratory analysis on pooled data from 5 clinical studies of panitumumab monotherapy to: – assess the association between severity of skin toxicity throughout treatment and panitumumab efficacy – evaluate predictive value of skin toxicity severity in the first 4 weeks for response to panitumumab Key endpoints of panitumumab monotherapy studies: Key endpoints of panitumumab monotherapy studies: – Objective response rate – Progression-free survival – Duration of response – Time to response – Safety (including skin toxicities, infusion reactions, and anti-panitumumab antibody formation)

Van Cutsem & Peeters, et al Berlin, et al Hecht, et al. 2007a 6 Hecht, et al. 2007b 7 Phase 3 Panitumumab Crossover Phase3 3 (ES a ) 222 Patients enrolled, n Patients included in current analysis, n Dose schedule 6 mg/kg Q2W 2.5 mg/kg QW Response assessment RECIST Central review RECIST Local review WHO Central review RECIST Central review Assessment schedule Wks 8-48 and Q3M thereafter until PD Q8W and at investigator discretion Wks 8-48 and Q3M thereafter until PD Q9W and at investigator discretion Tumor cells stained for membrane EGFr b, % ≥ 1% ≥ 10% < 1% or 1-9% High c or low d Design and Methods PD: progression of disease; RECIST: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; WHO: World Health Organization. Van Cutsem & Peeters and Hecht (2007a and b) studies are complete; Berlin study is interim. a ES: extension study. Patients who developed progressive disease while receiving best supportive care in the phase 3 study were allowed to cross over to this extension study to receive panitumumab until disease progression or drug intolerability. b By immunohistochemistry at central laboratory using DakoCytomation EGFr pharmDx TM staining kit (DakoCytomation, Carpinteria, CA). c High: ≥ 10% of tumor cells with 2+ and 3+ staining intensity score. d Low: ≥ 10% of tumor cells with 1+, 2+, and 3+ staining intensity score, but < 10% with 2+ and 3+ staining intensity score.

Key Eligibility Criteria Pathologic diagnosis of CRC Pathologic diagnosis of CRC Age  18 years Age  18 years ECOG score of 0 – 2 (4 studies) 0 – 1 (1 study) ECOG score of 0 – 2 (4 studies) 0 – 1 (1 study) Radiographic documentation of disease progression during or within 6 months after the most recent chemotherapy of fluoropyrimidine with Radiographic documentation of disease progression during or within 6 months after the most recent chemotherapy of fluoropyrimidine with Irinotecan  65 mg/m 2 /week for 8 weeks and Irinotecan  65 mg/m 2 /week for 8 weeks and Oxaliplatin  30 mg/m 2 /week for 6 weeks Oxaliplatin  30 mg/m 2 /week for 6 weeks – For the Hecht 2007b study, documentation of disease progression was not required and patients could have received prior fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan or oxaliplatin, or both. Pre-specified levels of EGFr tumor membrane staining according to each study (by immunohistochemistry at central laboratory). Pre-specified levels of EGFr tumor membrane staining according to each study (by immunohistochemistry at central laboratory).

Statistical Analysis Analyses by skin toxicity severity: – Included patients common to the primary efficacy and safety analysis sets for each trial with known worst severity of skin toxicity or with no skin toxicity reported. – Included patients with at least 2 infusions of panitumumab to ensure adequate exposure and time for skin toxicity onset. – Descriptive estimates of objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by worst skin toxicity severity throughout the trial or in the first 4 weeks. – Descriptive estimates of median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and 95% CI by worst skin toxicity severity throughout the trial or in the first 4 weeks. – Descriptive estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative prediction values, and kappa statistics. – Univariate regression analysis of skin toxicity severity (throughout trial vs. the first 4 weeks) as a predictor for objective response or disease control (logistic model), and PFS or OS (proportional hazards model).

Patient Disposition Patients Patients enrolled – n 851 Safety set – n (%) 847 (>99) Efficacy set – n (%) 762 (90) Patients in both safety and efficacy sets – n (%) 758 (89) Patients included in this analysis a,b – n (%) 727 (96) Patients excluded a,b – n (%) 31 (4) Received < 2 infusions b – n (%) Received < 2 infusions b – n (%) 30 (4) Severity of skin toxicity unknown b – n (%) Severity of skin toxicity unknown b – n (%) 1 (<1) Median (min, max) follow-up c - weeks 27 (2, 111) a Patients in both the safety and efficacy sets who received at least 2 infusions (exposure over 2 weeks for QW dosing or over 4 weeks for Q2W dosing) and had known grade of skin toxicity. b Percentages based on patients in both the safety and efficacy sets. c Follow-up time was calculated from the day of enrollment to the date of last contact. Results

Demographics a ECOG status 3 was reported in 1 patient in the phase 3 study. Panitumumab (N = 727) Sex - n (%) Men 446 (61) Age Median (min, max) years 61 (20, 88) Race - n (%) White 649 (89) Black / African American 45 (6) Asian / Japanese 15 (2) Hispanic / Latino 15 (2) Other 3 (<1) ECOG status a - n (%) (41) (51) 2 60 (8)

Disease Characteristics Panitumumab (N = 727) Primary diagnosis - n (%) Colon cancer Colon cancer 491 (68) Rectal cancer Rectal cancer 235 (32) Unknown Unknown 1 (<1) Prior chemotherapy - n (%) At least 2 lines 619 (85) At least 3 lines 206 (28) Not collected / unknown a 80 (11) Tumor cells with membrane EGFr staining – Mean % (SD) b 33 (34) a Hecht 2007b study had incomplete data. b Value unknown for 6 patients.

Incidence and Severity of Skin-Related Toxicities Panitumumab (N = 727) All skin-related toxicity - n (%) 695 (96) Grade (28) Grade (52) Grade (14) Grade 4 3 (<1) Graded using the NCI CTCAE v 2.0, except for selected dermatology/skin adverse events that were graded using the CTCAE v 3.0 with modifications.

Skin-Related Toxicities Occurring in at Least 5% of Patients MedDRA v.8 preferred terms; graded using the NCI CTCAE v 2.0, except for selected dermatology/skin adverse events that were graded using the CTCAE v 3.0 with modifications. Any grade Grade 3/4 All events, n (%) 695 (96) 108 (15) Erythema 415 (57) 31 (4) Pruritus 413 (57) 15 (2) Dermatitis acneiform 385 (53) 38 (5) Rash 274 (38) 20 (3) Skin exfoliation 134 (18) 7 (1) Skin fissures 124 (17) 4 (1) Dry skin 112 (15) 1 (0) Acne 54 (7) 5 (1) Pustular rash 43 (6) 5 (1) Exfoliative rash 36 (5) 3 (0)

Probability of Time to Skin Toxicity Onset for Patients With a Skin Toxicity a Median weeks All grades1.4 Grade Event probability Weeks Subjects at risk: Grade 1-4 Grade

Severity of Skin Toxicity Throughout Treatment is Weakly Associated With Objective Response Grade 0–1 skin toxicity (N = 239) Grade 2–4 skin toxicity (N = 488) P value Responders – n (%) 10 (4.2) 55 (11.3) 55 (11.3) a Non-responders – n (%) 229 (95.8) b 433 (88.7) Specificity c Sensitivity d Kappa e (95% CI) (0.02, 0.08) Excluded patients common to the efficacy and safety analysis sets with < 2 infusions or with unknown grade of skin toxicity. a Predictive value of grade 2-4 for response. b Predictive value of grade 0-1 for non-response. c Percentage of non-responders with grade 0-1 skin toxicity throughout treatment. d Percentage of responders with grade 2-4 skin toxicity throughout treatment. e Statistical measure of agreement between objective response and grade 2-4 skin toxicity, a value of 1.0 indicates positive agreement, and -1.0 negative agreement. Association Between Severity of Skin Toxicity and Panitumumab Efficacy

Severity of Skin Toxicity Throughout Treatment is Associated With Progression-Free Survival Median Months Grade Grade Event-free probability (%) Months Patients at risk: Grade 2-4 Grade Hazard ratio = 0.66 (95% Cl: 0.56, 0.78) P <

Median Months Grade Grade Survival probability (%) Months Patients at risk: Grade 2-4 Grade Hazard ratio = 0.62 (95% Cl: 0.52, 0.74) P < Severity of Skin Toxicity Throughout Treatment is Associated With Overall Survival

Severity of Skin Toxicity in the First 4 Weeks is Not a Predictive Factor for Objective Response Grade 0–1 skin toxicity (N = 327) Grade 2–4 skin toxicity (N = 400) Odds ratio (Grade 2–4:0–1) (95% Cl) P value Responders – n (%) 24 (7.3) 41 (10.3) 41 (10.3) a 1.4 (0.9, 2.4) Non-responders – n (%) 303 (92.6) b 359 (89.8) Excluded patients common to the efficacy and safety analysis set with < 2 infusions or with unknown grade of skin toxicity. a Predictive value of grade 2-4 for response. b Predictive value of grade 0-1 for non-response. Predictive Value of Skin Toxicity Severity in the First 4 Weeks for Response to Panitumumab

Median Months Grade Grade Event-free probability (%) Months Patients at risk: Grade 2-4 Grade Hazard ratio = 0.85 (95% Cl: 0.73, 0.99) P = Severity of Skin Toxicity in the First 4 Weeks is Not a Predictive Factor for Progression-Free Survival

Median Months Grade Grade Survival probability (%) Months Patients at risk: Grade 2-4 Grade Hazard ratio = 0.79 (95% Cl: 0.67, 0.93) P = Severity of Skin Toxicity in the First 4 Weeks is a Predictive Factor for Overall Survival

Conclusions In this large combined analysis, severity of skin toxicity throughout treatment was associated with a numerically higher ORR and disease control rate and better PFS and OS. In this large combined analysis, severity of skin toxicity throughout treatment was associated with a numerically higher ORR and disease control rate and better PFS and OS. – The association between efficacy outcomes and severity of skin toxicity reported throughout the treatment may have been confounded by the lead- time bias. Substantial number of patients developed severe skin toxicity after the first 4 weeks of treatment. Substantial number of patients developed severe skin toxicity after the first 4 weeks of treatment. Severity of skin toxicity in the first 4 weeks of treatment was a predictive factor for OS but not for ORR, disease control rate, and PFS. Severity of skin toxicity in the first 4 weeks of treatment was a predictive factor for OS but not for ORR, disease control rate, and PFS. Overall, patients with a higher skin toxicity severity appear to have a better prognosis. Overall, patients with a higher skin toxicity severity appear to have a better prognosis. The findings of this exploratory analysis suggest that lack of grade 2-4 skin toxicity at week 4 should not guide the treatment. The findings of this exploratory analysis suggest that lack of grade 2-4 skin toxicity at week 4 should not guide the treatment. – Careful monitoring and early treatment of skin toxicities should be performed while continuing to treatment with panitumumab.

References 1.Foon K, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58: VectibixTM Prescribing Information, Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks CA; Berlin J, et al. Annals Oncol. 2006;17 (supp 9): Abstract # Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25: Berlin J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24 (suppl 16): Abstract # Hecht JR, et al. Proc Gasterointestinal Cancer Symp. 2007a: Abstract. 7.Hecht JR, et al. Cancer. 2007b; In press.