Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

J. Spicer



Author of

  • +

    OA 02 - Mesothelioma: Challenges For New Treatment (ID 653)

    • Event: WCLC 2017
    • Type: Oral
    • Track: Mesothelioma
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      OA 02.01 - Randomized Phase II Study of Anetumab Ravtansine or Vinorelbine in Patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (ID 9377)

      11:00 - 12:30  |  Author(s): J. Spicer

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background:
      Anetumab ravtansine (BAY 94-9343) is a novel fully human anti-mesothelin IgG1 antibody conjugated to the maytansinoid tubulin inhibitor DM4. We report the results of a randomized phase II trial of anetumab ravtansine compared to vinorelbine in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) who have high mesothelin expression and have progressed on platinum/pemetrexed-based first-line chemotherapy (NCT02610140).

      Method:
      Patients (≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic MPM with progressive disease following first-line treatment with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab, were eligible. Patients were pre-screened based on obligatory tumor staining for mesothelin as determined by the Ventana MSLN (SP74) immunohistochemistry assay. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per central radiologic review using modified RECIST criteria for MPM. Secondary objectives included overall survival, tumor response, and safety. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to anetumab ravtansine 6.5 mg/kg Q3W IV or vinorelbine 30 mg/m[2] QW IV.

      Result:
      A total of 166 patients were randomized to anetumab ravtansine and 82 to vinorelbine; 3 and 10 patients, respectively, not receiving treatment were included for efficacy but not safety assessments. The treatment arms were evenly balanced, with 73% male, 64% ECOG performance status 1, 96% epithelioid histology, and a mean 2.5 (±2.4) months since last progression. The median duration of treatment (anetumab vs vinorelbine) was 12.6 weeks (range 3-61) vs 13.0 weeks (range 1-43). Treatment-emergent grade (G) ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were seen in 85 (52.1%) and 53 (73.6%) of patients, respectively. G3/G4 neutropenia (22.2%/16.7%) occurred in the vinorelbine arm whereas corneal epitheliopathy (39.3% all grade, 1.8% G3) was distinct for the anetumab ravtansine arm. Serious AEs (any grade) were similar; 52 (31.9%) vs 25 (34.7%). Treatment-emergent AEs leading to dose modification were 42.9% in the anetumab ravtansine arm and 80.6% in the vinorelbine arm. There was one treatment-related G5 event in each arm. Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI:4.1, 5.2) for anetumab ravtansine vs 4.5 months (4.1, 5.8) for vinorelbine; hazard ratio 1.22 (0.85, 1.74), p=0.859. Fourteen (8.4%) patients in the anetumab ravtansine arm had an objective response vs 5 (6.1%) in the vinorelbine arm, with no complete responses. Interim median overall survival was 10.1 mo (7.6, -) vs 11.6 mo (7.7, 12.5), respectively, p-value 0.721.

      Conclusion:
      In relapsed MPM, anetumab ravtansine was not superior to vinorelbine with respect to PFS.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.