Virtual Library
Start Your Search
P. Taylor
Author of
-
+
OA 02 - Mesothelioma: Challenges For New Treatment (ID 653)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Oral
- Track: Mesothelioma
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:S. Hasegawa, Anna Nowak
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, F205 + F206 (Annex Hall)
-
+
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): P. Taylor
- Abstract
- Presentation
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.
-
+
OA 02.03 - Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts (PIT) in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma: Results of a Multicentre Phase III Trial (ID 7980)
11:00 - 12:30 | Author(s): P. Taylor
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
It has been widespread practice across Europe to irradiate diagnostic or therapeutic chest wall (CW) intervention sites in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) post-procedure - a practice known as prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT). This study aims to determine the efficacy of PIT in reducing the incidence of CW metastases following a chest wall procedure in MPM.
Method:
In this multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial, MPM patients following a chest wall procedure were randomised 1: 1 to receive PIT (within 42-days of procedure) or no PIT. Large thoracotomies, needle biopsy sites and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. PIT was delivered at a dose of 21Gy in 3 fractions over 3 consecutive weekdays using a single electron field adapted to maximise coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CW metastases within 6 months from randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epitheloid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. Trial registration number NCT01604005.
Result:
375 patients (186 PIT and 189 no PIT) were randomised between 06/2012-12/2015 from 54 UK centres. Comparing PIT vs no PIT, %male patients was 89.8/88.4%, median age 72.8/74.6 years, %ECOG PS (0,1,2) 32.2,56.5,11.3/23.8,56.1,20.1%, %confirmed epithelioid histology 79.6/74.1%, and %with intention to give chemotherapy 71.5/71.4%. The chest wall procedures were VATS (58.1/51.3%), open surgical biopsy (2.7/5.3%), local-anaesthetic-thoracoscopy (26.9/27.0%), chest drain (5.9/8.5%) and others (6.5/7.9%) for the PIT vs no PIT arm respectively. Radiotherapy was received as intended by 181/186 patients in the PIT arm. The proportion of CW metastases by 6 months was 6/186 (3.2%) vs 10/189 (5.3%) for the PIT vs no PIT arm respectively (odds ratio 0.60 [95% CI 0.17-1.86]; p=0.44) and by 12 months 15/186 (8.1%) versus 19/189 (10.1%) respectively (OR=0.79 [95% CI 0.36-1.69];p=0.59). Cumulative incidence of CW metastases at 6months/12 months/24 months was 3.3/8.5/10.0% in the PIT arm vs 5.6/10.9/18.7% in the no PIT arm. Evaluable patients who developed CW metastases reported a mean increase in visual analogue scale pain score of 13.3 (p<0.01) compared to baseline. Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the PIT arm with 96(51.6%) grade 1, 19(10.2%) grade 2, and 1(0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (CTCAE V4.0). There were no other grade 3 or higher radiotherapy-related adverse events.
Conclusion:
There is no role for the routine use of PIT following diagnostic or therapeutic CW procedures in patients with MPM.
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.
