ESMO Congress 2017

Photo by Bill Branson

MADRID—The biosimilar GP2013 has demonstrated equivalence to its reference drug rituximab in patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

Treatment with GP2013 plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) produced a similar overall response rate (ORR) as rituximab plus CVP in the phase 3 ASSIST-FL trial.

Survival rates were also similar between the treatment arms, as were adverse events (AEs).

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology and presented at ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 994O).

The study was funded by Hexal AG, a Sandoz company (part of the Novartis group), which is marketing GP2013 as Rixathon in Europe.

Patients and treatment

The trial included 629 patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage FL. They were randomized to receive 8 cycles of GP2013-CVP (n=314) or rituximab-CVP (n=315). Responders in either arm could receive monotherapy maintenance for up to 2 years.

The mean age was 57.5 in the GP2013 arm and 56.4 in the rituximab arm. Fifty-eight percent and 54% of patients, respectively, were female.

Fifty-seven percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 56% in the rituximab arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty percent and 39%, respectively, had a status of 1. Two percent and 4%, respectively, had a status of 2. (For the remaining 1% of patients in each arm, data on performance status were missing.)

Patients had an Ann Arbor stage of III—46% in the GP2013 arm and 43% in the GP2013 arm—or IV—54% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm.

Fifty-six percent of patients in each arm were high-risk according to FLIPI. Thirty-four percent in the GP2013 arm and 33% in the rituximab arm were intermediate-risk. Ten percent and 11%, respectively, were low-risk.

Fourteen percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 18% in the rituximab arm had bulky disease. Fifteen percent and 13%, respectively, had splenic involvement.

ORR and survival

The patients had a median follow-up of 23.8 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was equivalence in ORR, defined by a 95% confidence interval (CI) with a margin of ± 12% standard deviation.

The primary endpoint was met, as the ORR was 87% in the GP2013 arm and 88% in the rituximab arm, with a difference of –0.40% (95% CI –5.94%, 5.14%).

The complete response rate was 15% in the GP2013 arm and 13% in the rituximab arm. The partial response rates were 72% and 74%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival have not been reached. However, the progression-free survival rate was 70% in the GP2013 arm and 76% in the rituximab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=1.31; 95% CI 1.02, 1.69).

The overall survival rate was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.49, 1.22).

Safety

During the combination phase, the incidence of AEs was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 23% and 20%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were neutropenia (26% and 30%), constipation (22% and 20%), and nausea (16% and 13%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (18% and 21%).

There were 11 deaths reported during the combination phase—4 in the GP2013 arm and 7 in the rituximab arm.

Three deaths in the GP2013 arm (sudden death, septic shock, and respiratory failure) and 2 deaths in the rituximab arm (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and sepsis) were suspected to be related to study treatment.

During the maintenance phase, the incidence of AEs was 63% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 6% and 4%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were infections and infestations (20% and 27%), neutropenia (10% and 6%), cough (9% and 6%), and upper respiratory tract infection (3% and 6%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (7% and 4%).

There were 4 deaths reported during the maintenance phase, 2 in each treatment arm.

Photo by Bill Branson

MADRID—The biosimilar GP2013 has demonstrated equivalence to its reference drug rituximab in patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

Treatment with GP2013 plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) produced a similar overall response rate (ORR) as rituximab plus CVP in the phase 3 ASSIST-FL trial.

Survival rates were also similar between the treatment arms, as were adverse events (AEs).

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology and presented at ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 994O).

The study was funded by Hexal AG, a Sandoz company (part of the Novartis group), which is marketing GP2013 as Rixathon in Europe.

Patients and treatment

The trial included 629 patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage FL. They were randomized to receive 8 cycles of GP2013-CVP (n=314) or rituximab-CVP (n=315). Responders in either arm could receive monotherapy maintenance for up to 2 years.

The mean age was 57.5 in the GP2013 arm and 56.4 in the rituximab arm. Fifty-eight percent and 54% of patients, respectively, were female.

Fifty-seven percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 56% in the rituximab arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty percent and 39%, respectively, had a status of 1. Two percent and 4%, respectively, had a status of 2. (For the remaining 1% of patients in each arm, data on performance status were missing.)

Patients had an Ann Arbor stage of III—46% in the GP2013 arm and 43% in the GP2013 arm—or IV—54% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm.

Fifty-six percent of patients in each arm were high-risk according to FLIPI. Thirty-four percent in the GP2013 arm and 33% in the rituximab arm were intermediate-risk. Ten percent and 11%, respectively, were low-risk.

Fourteen percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 18% in the rituximab arm had bulky disease. Fifteen percent and 13%, respectively, had splenic involvement.

ORR and survival

The patients had a median follow-up of 23.8 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was equivalence in ORR, defined by a 95% confidence interval (CI) with a margin of ± 12% standard deviation.

The primary endpoint was met, as the ORR was 87% in the GP2013 arm and 88% in the rituximab arm, with a difference of –0.40% (95% CI –5.94%, 5.14%).

The complete response rate was 15% in the GP2013 arm and 13% in the rituximab arm. The partial response rates were 72% and 74%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival have not been reached. However, the progression-free survival rate was 70% in the GP2013 arm and 76% in the rituximab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=1.31; 95% CI 1.02, 1.69).

The overall survival rate was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.49, 1.22).

Safety

During the combination phase, the incidence of AEs was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 23% and 20%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were neutropenia (26% and 30%), constipation (22% and 20%), and nausea (16% and 13%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (18% and 21%).

There were 11 deaths reported during the combination phase—4 in the GP2013 arm and 7 in the rituximab arm.

Three deaths in the GP2013 arm (sudden death, septic shock, and respiratory failure) and 2 deaths in the rituximab arm (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and sepsis) were suspected to be related to study treatment.

During the maintenance phase, the incidence of AEs was 63% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 6% and 4%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were infections and infestations (20% and 27%), neutropenia (10% and 6%), cough (9% and 6%), and upper respiratory tract infection (3% and 6%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (7% and 4%).

There were 4 deaths reported during the maintenance phase, 2 in each treatment arm.

Photo by Bill Branson

MADRID—The biosimilar GP2013 has demonstrated equivalence to its reference drug rituximab in patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL), according to researchers.

Treatment with GP2013 plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) produced a similar overall response rate (ORR) as rituximab plus CVP in the phase 3 ASSIST-FL trial.

Survival rates were also similar between the treatment arms, as were adverse events (AEs).

Results from this study were published in The Lancet Haematology and presented at ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 994O).

The study was funded by Hexal AG, a Sandoz company (part of the Novartis group), which is marketing GP2013 as Rixathon in Europe.

Patients and treatment

The trial included 629 patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage FL. They were randomized to receive 8 cycles of GP2013-CVP (n=314) or rituximab-CVP (n=315). Responders in either arm could receive monotherapy maintenance for up to 2 years.

The mean age was 57.5 in the GP2013 arm and 56.4 in the rituximab arm. Fifty-eight percent and 54% of patients, respectively, were female.

Fifty-seven percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 56% in the rituximab arm had an ECOG performance status of 0. Forty percent and 39%, respectively, had a status of 1. Two percent and 4%, respectively, had a status of 2. (For the remaining 1% of patients in each arm, data on performance status were missing.)

Patients had an Ann Arbor stage of III—46% in the GP2013 arm and 43% in the GP2013 arm—or IV—54% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm.

Fifty-six percent of patients in each arm were high-risk according to FLIPI. Thirty-four percent in the GP2013 arm and 33% in the rituximab arm were intermediate-risk. Ten percent and 11%, respectively, were low-risk.

Fourteen percent of patients in the GP2013 arm and 18% in the rituximab arm had bulky disease. Fifteen percent and 13%, respectively, had splenic involvement.

ORR and survival

The patients had a median follow-up of 23.8 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was equivalence in ORR, defined by a 95% confidence interval (CI) with a margin of ± 12% standard deviation.

The primary endpoint was met, as the ORR was 87% in the GP2013 arm and 88% in the rituximab arm, with a difference of –0.40% (95% CI –5.94%, 5.14%).

The complete response rate was 15% in the GP2013 arm and 13% in the rituximab arm. The partial response rates were 72% and 74%, respectively.

The median progression-free survival and overall survival have not been reached. However, the progression-free survival rate was 70% in the GP2013 arm and 76% in the rituximab arm (hazard ratio [HR]=1.31; 95% CI 1.02, 1.69).

The overall survival rate was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.49, 1.22).

Safety

During the combination phase, the incidence of AEs was 93% in the GP2013 arm and 91% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 23% and 20%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were neutropenia (26% and 30%), constipation (22% and 20%), and nausea (16% and 13%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (18% and 21%).

There were 11 deaths reported during the combination phase—4 in the GP2013 arm and 7 in the rituximab arm.

Three deaths in the GP2013 arm (sudden death, septic shock, and respiratory failure) and 2 deaths in the rituximab arm (multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and sepsis) were suspected to be related to study treatment.

During the maintenance phase, the incidence of AEs was 63% in the GP2013 arm and 57% in the rituximab arm. The incidence of serious AEs was 6% and 4%, respectively.

The most frequent AEs (in the GP2013 and rituximab arms, respectively) were infections and infestations (20% and 27%), neutropenia (10% and 6%), cough (9% and 6%), and upper respiratory tract infection (3% and 6%). The most common grade 3/4 AE was neutropenia (7% and 4%).

There were 4 deaths reported during the maintenance phase, 2 in each treatment arm.

Photo courtesy of ESMO

MADRID—New research suggests patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) are more likely to develop acute myeloid leukemia (AML) if they receive radioactive iodine (RAI) after surgery.

Of the WDTC patients studied, those who only underwent surgery were less likely to develop AML.

WDTC patients who did develop AML had a far worse prognosis than WDTC patients without AML and patients with de novo AML.

These results were presented at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 996O).

Researchers already knew that the risk of developing leukemia is increased after radiation and RAI treatment for WDTC.

However, the risk of AML following RAI treatment in WDTC survivors had not been fully characterized, according to Remco J. Molenaar, an MD/PhD candidate at Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Therefore, Molenaar and colleagues reviewed data from all 18 registries in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database for WDTC cases treated solely with surgery or by surgery and RAI.

The researchers identified 148,215 patients who were diagnosed with WDTC from 1973 to 2014. Fifty-five percent were treated with surgery alone, and 45% were treated with surgery and RAI.

The median follow-up was 4.3 person-years. AML occurred in 44 patients in the surgery-only arm and 56 patients in the RAI arm.

A comparison to the background rates in the general population showed that patients receiving surgery plus RAI had an increased risk of developing AML (relative risk=5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8, 8.1; P<0.0001), after correcting for age, sex, and year of WDTC diagnosis.

This risk peaked within the first 3 years following RAI and subsequently regressed to baseline rates.

In multivariate analysis that corrected for sex and WDTC tumor size, 3 variables emerged as independent predictors of AML development. There was an increased risk of AML associated with:

• Patient age (hazard ratio [HR]=1.03; 95% CI 1.02, 1.05; P<0.001)
• WDTC tumor stage (HR=1.36; 95% CI 1.04, 1.79; P=0.03)
• Receiving RAI after thyroidectomy vs thyroidectomy alone (HR=1.38; 95% CI 1.09, 1.75; P=0.007).

The researchers also found prognosis is significantly poorer in WDTC patients who develop AML following RAI and in patients with spontaneous AML development.

Case-control analyses revealed that WDTC patients who developed AML after surgery and RAI survived one-third as long as matched control patients who were successfully treated for WDTC but did not develop AML. The median overall survival was 7.4 years and 24.4 years, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients who were diagnosed with AML after RAI treatment also had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with de novo AML. The median overall survival was 1.2 years and 3.5 years, respectively (P=0.004).

The researchers noted that rates of AML in WDTC survivors will likely continue to rise due to the increasing incidence of WDTC, the young ages at which most WDTC diagnoses are made, and the otherwise high survival rates of patients with WDTC.

Photo courtesy of ESMO

MADRID—New research suggests patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) are more likely to develop acute myeloid leukemia (AML) if they receive radioactive iodine (RAI) after surgery.

Of the WDTC patients studied, those who only underwent surgery were less likely to develop AML.

WDTC patients who did develop AML had a far worse prognosis than WDTC patients without AML and patients with de novo AML.

These results were presented at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 996O).

Researchers already knew that the risk of developing leukemia is increased after radiation and RAI treatment for WDTC.

However, the risk of AML following RAI treatment in WDTC survivors had not been fully characterized, according to Remco J. Molenaar, an MD/PhD candidate at Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Therefore, Molenaar and colleagues reviewed data from all 18 registries in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database for WDTC cases treated solely with surgery or by surgery and RAI.

The researchers identified 148,215 patients who were diagnosed with WDTC from 1973 to 2014. Fifty-five percent were treated with surgery alone, and 45% were treated with surgery and RAI.

The median follow-up was 4.3 person-years. AML occurred in 44 patients in the surgery-only arm and 56 patients in the RAI arm.

A comparison to the background rates in the general population showed that patients receiving surgery plus RAI had an increased risk of developing AML (relative risk=5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8, 8.1; P<0.0001), after correcting for age, sex, and year of WDTC diagnosis.

This risk peaked within the first 3 years following RAI and subsequently regressed to baseline rates.

In multivariate analysis that corrected for sex and WDTC tumor size, 3 variables emerged as independent predictors of AML development. There was an increased risk of AML associated with:

• Patient age (hazard ratio [HR]=1.03; 95% CI 1.02, 1.05; P<0.001)
• WDTC tumor stage (HR=1.36; 95% CI 1.04, 1.79; P=0.03)
• Receiving RAI after thyroidectomy vs thyroidectomy alone (HR=1.38; 95% CI 1.09, 1.75; P=0.007).

The researchers also found prognosis is significantly poorer in WDTC patients who develop AML following RAI and in patients with spontaneous AML development.

Case-control analyses revealed that WDTC patients who developed AML after surgery and RAI survived one-third as long as matched control patients who were successfully treated for WDTC but did not develop AML. The median overall survival was 7.4 years and 24.4 years, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients who were diagnosed with AML after RAI treatment also had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with de novo AML. The median overall survival was 1.2 years and 3.5 years, respectively (P=0.004).

The researchers noted that rates of AML in WDTC survivors will likely continue to rise due to the increasing incidence of WDTC, the young ages at which most WDTC diagnoses are made, and the otherwise high survival rates of patients with WDTC.

Photo courtesy of ESMO

MADRID—New research suggests patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) are more likely to develop acute myeloid leukemia (AML) if they receive radioactive iodine (RAI) after surgery.

Of the WDTC patients studied, those who only underwent surgery were less likely to develop AML.

WDTC patients who did develop AML had a far worse prognosis than WDTC patients without AML and patients with de novo AML.

These results were presented at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 996O).

Researchers already knew that the risk of developing leukemia is increased after radiation and RAI treatment for WDTC.

However, the risk of AML following RAI treatment in WDTC survivors had not been fully characterized, according to Remco J. Molenaar, an MD/PhD candidate at Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Therefore, Molenaar and colleagues reviewed data from all 18 registries in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database for WDTC cases treated solely with surgery or by surgery and RAI.

The researchers identified 148,215 patients who were diagnosed with WDTC from 1973 to 2014. Fifty-five percent were treated with surgery alone, and 45% were treated with surgery and RAI.

The median follow-up was 4.3 person-years. AML occurred in 44 patients in the surgery-only arm and 56 patients in the RAI arm.

A comparison to the background rates in the general population showed that patients receiving surgery plus RAI had an increased risk of developing AML (relative risk=5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8, 8.1; P<0.0001), after correcting for age, sex, and year of WDTC diagnosis.

This risk peaked within the first 3 years following RAI and subsequently regressed to baseline rates.

In multivariate analysis that corrected for sex and WDTC tumor size, 3 variables emerged as independent predictors of AML development. There was an increased risk of AML associated with:

• Patient age (hazard ratio [HR]=1.03; 95% CI 1.02, 1.05; P<0.001)
• WDTC tumor stage (HR=1.36; 95% CI 1.04, 1.79; P=0.03)
• Receiving RAI after thyroidectomy vs thyroidectomy alone (HR=1.38; 95% CI 1.09, 1.75; P=0.007).

The researchers also found prognosis is significantly poorer in WDTC patients who develop AML following RAI and in patients with spontaneous AML development.

Case-control analyses revealed that WDTC patients who developed AML after surgery and RAI survived one-third as long as matched control patients who were successfully treated for WDTC but did not develop AML. The median overall survival was 7.4 years and 24.4 years, respectively (P<0.0001).

Patients who were diagnosed with AML after RAI treatment also had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with de novo AML. The median overall survival was 1.2 years and 3.5 years, respectively (P=0.004).

The researchers noted that rates of AML in WDTC survivors will likely continue to rise due to the increasing incidence of WDTC, the young ages at which most WDTC diagnoses are made, and the otherwise high survival rates of patients with WDTC.

MADRID – For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Among 906 patients who underwent complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV melanoma in the Checkmate 238 trial, the rates of relapse-free survival (RFS), the primary endpoint, were 71% at 12 months for patients assigned to adjuvant nivolumab, compared with 61% for adjuvant ipilimumab. At 18 months, the respective RFS rates were 66% and 53%, reported Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

MADRID – For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Among 906 patients who underwent complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV melanoma in the Checkmate 238 trial, the rates of relapse-free survival (RFS), the primary endpoint, were 71% at 12 months for patients assigned to adjuvant nivolumab, compared with 61% for adjuvant ipilimumab. At 18 months, the respective RFS rates were 66% and 53%, reported Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

MADRID – For patients with resectable stage III melanoma, adjuvant therapy with the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) was associated with significantly longer relapse-free survival compared with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy), results of a randomized phase 3 trial show.

Among 906 patients who underwent complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or stage IV melanoma in the Checkmate 238 trial, the rates of relapse-free survival (RFS), the primary endpoint, were 71% at 12 months for patients assigned to adjuvant nivolumab, compared with 61% for adjuvant ipilimumab. At 18 months, the respective RFS rates were 66% and 53%, reported Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

MADRID – The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib (Tagrisso) is being hailed as a new standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced, treatment naïve non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).

Osimertinib cut the risk of disease progression in these patients by 54% compared gefitinib (Iressa) or erlotinib (Tarceva).

Among 279 patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with osemirtinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 18.9 months, compared with 10.2 months for 277 patients treated with the standard of care, which translates into a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (P less than .0001).

Photo by Esther Dyson

MADRID—Results of a nationwide study suggest many cancer patients in Ireland don’t understand key aspects of clinical trial methodology.

Most of the patients surveyed, which included individuals who had participated in a clinical trial, did not understand the concepts of randomization or equipoise.

“Over half of previous medical trial participants and 73% of those who had never been on a cancer clinical trial did not understand that, in a randomized trial, the treatment given was decided by chance,” said study investigator Catherine Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

“We also found that most patients did not understand clinical equipoise—the fact that no one knows which treatment is best. Surprisingly, this was more marked in previous clinical trial participants, 60% of whom believed that their doctor would know which study arm was best.”

Dr Kelly and her colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1465P_PR).

The researchers surveyed 1090 adult cancer patients treated at 1 of 14 participating oncology centers across Ireland.

The patients’ median age was 60 (range, 50-69), 64.4% were female, and 66% were diagnosed between 2014 and 2016. The most common cancer types were breast (31.4%), colorectal (15.6%), hematologic (12.6%), genitourinary (11.6%), and lung (6.8%).

The patients filled out anonymized questionnaires in which they were asked to evaluate statements about clinical trials. The patients had to determine whether a statement is true or false, or they could indicate that they didn’t know an answer.

A majority of the patients (82.3%) said they understood what a medical or cancer clinical trial is. And 27.8% of patients said they had previously participated in a cancer trial.

However, many patients didn’t know when clinical trials may be an option. Twenty-two percent of patients said it is true that “clinical trials are only used when standard treatments have not worked,” and 26.6% said they didn’t know if this statement is true or false.

Roughly a third (33.5%) of patients said it is true that, in a randomized trial, treatment is decided by chance, but 41.4% of patients said this is false, and 25% said they didn’t know.

More than half of patients (56.5%) said their doctor would know which treatment was superior in a clinical trial, and 23.2% of patients said they didn’t know if their doctor would know.

About 61% of all patients said their doctor would make sure they received the superior treatment in a clinical trial. An even greater percentage—63.6%—of patients who had previously participated in a clinical trial said the same.

“To provide informed consent when participating in a trial, patients need to understand these key concepts, and doctors explaining them well is essential to alleviating any fears that might prevent patients from participating,” Dr Kelly said.

“Doctors have a responsibility to properly inform their patients in this regard because they are the ones patients trust the most. As we analyze the data further, we will be able to offer physicians a more detailed picture of the questions patients need answered and the factors that influence their decision-making according to age group, cancer type, educational background, and other demographics.”

Funding for this research was provided to Cancer Trials Ireland by Amgen, Abbvie, Bayor, and Inveva.

Photo by Esther Dyson

MADRID—Results of a nationwide study suggest many cancer patients in Ireland don’t understand key aspects of clinical trial methodology.

Most of the patients surveyed, which included individuals who had participated in a clinical trial, did not understand the concepts of randomization or equipoise.

“Over half of previous medical trial participants and 73% of those who had never been on a cancer clinical trial did not understand that, in a randomized trial, the treatment given was decided by chance,” said study investigator Catherine Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

“We also found that most patients did not understand clinical equipoise—the fact that no one knows which treatment is best. Surprisingly, this was more marked in previous clinical trial participants, 60% of whom believed that their doctor would know which study arm was best.”

Dr Kelly and her colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1465P_PR).

The researchers surveyed 1090 adult cancer patients treated at 1 of 14 participating oncology centers across Ireland.

The patients’ median age was 60 (range, 50-69), 64.4% were female, and 66% were diagnosed between 2014 and 2016. The most common cancer types were breast (31.4%), colorectal (15.6%), hematologic (12.6%), genitourinary (11.6%), and lung (6.8%).

The patients filled out anonymized questionnaires in which they were asked to evaluate statements about clinical trials. The patients had to determine whether a statement is true or false, or they could indicate that they didn’t know an answer.

A majority of the patients (82.3%) said they understood what a medical or cancer clinical trial is. And 27.8% of patients said they had previously participated in a cancer trial.

However, many patients didn’t know when clinical trials may be an option. Twenty-two percent of patients said it is true that “clinical trials are only used when standard treatments have not worked,” and 26.6% said they didn’t know if this statement is true or false.

Roughly a third (33.5%) of patients said it is true that, in a randomized trial, treatment is decided by chance, but 41.4% of patients said this is false, and 25% said they didn’t know.

More than half of patients (56.5%) said their doctor would know which treatment was superior in a clinical trial, and 23.2% of patients said they didn’t know if their doctor would know.

About 61% of all patients said their doctor would make sure they received the superior treatment in a clinical trial. An even greater percentage—63.6%—of patients who had previously participated in a clinical trial said the same.

“To provide informed consent when participating in a trial, patients need to understand these key concepts, and doctors explaining them well is essential to alleviating any fears that might prevent patients from participating,” Dr Kelly said.

“Doctors have a responsibility to properly inform their patients in this regard because they are the ones patients trust the most. As we analyze the data further, we will be able to offer physicians a more detailed picture of the questions patients need answered and the factors that influence their decision-making according to age group, cancer type, educational background, and other demographics.”

Funding for this research was provided to Cancer Trials Ireland by Amgen, Abbvie, Bayor, and Inveva.

Photo by Esther Dyson

MADRID—Results of a nationwide study suggest many cancer patients in Ireland don’t understand key aspects of clinical trial methodology.

Most of the patients surveyed, which included individuals who had participated in a clinical trial, did not understand the concepts of randomization or equipoise.

“Over half of previous medical trial participants and 73% of those who had never been on a cancer clinical trial did not understand that, in a randomized trial, the treatment given was decided by chance,” said study investigator Catherine Kelly, MB BCh, of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

“We also found that most patients did not understand clinical equipoise—the fact that no one knows which treatment is best. Surprisingly, this was more marked in previous clinical trial participants, 60% of whom believed that their doctor would know which study arm was best.”

Dr Kelly and her colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1465P_PR).

The researchers surveyed 1090 adult cancer patients treated at 1 of 14 participating oncology centers across Ireland.

The patients’ median age was 60 (range, 50-69), 64.4% were female, and 66% were diagnosed between 2014 and 2016. The most common cancer types were breast (31.4%), colorectal (15.6%), hematologic (12.6%), genitourinary (11.6%), and lung (6.8%).

The patients filled out anonymized questionnaires in which they were asked to evaluate statements about clinical trials. The patients had to determine whether a statement is true or false, or they could indicate that they didn’t know an answer.

A majority of the patients (82.3%) said they understood what a medical or cancer clinical trial is. And 27.8% of patients said they had previously participated in a cancer trial.

However, many patients didn’t know when clinical trials may be an option. Twenty-two percent of patients said it is true that “clinical trials are only used when standard treatments have not worked,” and 26.6% said they didn’t know if this statement is true or false.

Roughly a third (33.5%) of patients said it is true that, in a randomized trial, treatment is decided by chance, but 41.4% of patients said this is false, and 25% said they didn’t know.

More than half of patients (56.5%) said their doctor would know which treatment was superior in a clinical trial, and 23.2% of patients said they didn’t know if their doctor would know.

About 61% of all patients said their doctor would make sure they received the superior treatment in a clinical trial. An even greater percentage—63.6%—of patients who had previously participated in a clinical trial said the same.

“To provide informed consent when participating in a trial, patients need to understand these key concepts, and doctors explaining them well is essential to alleviating any fears that might prevent patients from participating,” Dr Kelly said.

“Doctors have a responsibility to properly inform their patients in this regard because they are the ones patients trust the most. As we analyze the data further, we will be able to offer physicians a more detailed picture of the questions patients need answered and the factors that influence their decision-making according to age group, cancer type, educational background, and other demographics.”

Funding for this research was provided to Cancer Trials Ireland by Amgen, Abbvie, Bayor, and Inveva.

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.
 

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.
 

MADRID – For patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, consolidation therapy with the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab after chemoradiation was associated with significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) than placebo, results of an interim analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial showed.

Among 713 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy, the median PFS from randomization was 16.8 months for patients assigned to durvalumab compared with 5.6 months for patients assigned to placebo, reported Luis Paz-Ares, MD, from the University of Madrid, Spain.
“Overall, we think durvalumab is a promising option for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemoradiation,” he said at a briefing at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress.

Approximately 25% to 30% of patients with NSCLC have locally advanced disease at the time of presentation. Patients with unresectable disease and good performance status are treated with chemoradiotheraoy consisting of a platinum doublet with concurrent radiation, but median PFS in these patients is generally short, on the order of 8 months. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate is 15%, he said.
Given the lack of major advances in the care of patients with stage 3 disease, investigators have been looking to newer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors to see whether they could improve outcomes.

PACIFIC is a phase 3 trial in which patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after a minimum of two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive intravenous durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Patients were stratified by age, sex, and smoking history.
Dr. Paz-Ares presented PFS results from the interim analysis, planned when about 367 events had occurred. Data on the co-primary endpoint of OS were not mature at the time of the data cutoff.

Median PFS from randomization according to blinded independent central review for 476 patients treated with durvalumab was 16.8 months, compared with 5.6 months for 237 patients who received the placebo. This translated into a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.52 (P  less than .0001).
The respective PFS rates for durvalumab and placebo, were 59.9% vs. 35.3% at 12 months, and 44.2% vs. 27% at 18 months.
Among 443 patients on durvalumab and 213 on placebo who were evaluable for objective responses (OR), the respective OR rates were 28.4% vs. 16.
There were 6 complete responses (CR), 120 partial responses (PR), and 233 cases of stable disease in the durvalumab arm, compared with one CR, 33 PR, and 119 cases of stable disease in the placebo arm. In the durvalumab arm, 73 patients (16.5%) had progressive disease, compared with 59 patients (27.7%) in the placebo arm.

The median duration of response was not reached in the durvalumab arm, compared with 13.8 months in the placebo arm.
The PD-L1 inhibitor was also associated with a lower incidence of any new lesion among the intention-to-treat population (20.4% vs. 32.1%).
Grade 3 or 4 toxicities from any cause were slightly higher with durvalumab, at 29.9% vs. 26.1%. Events leading to discontinuation were also higher with the active drug, at 15.4% vs. 9.8% for placebo.
There were 21 deaths (4.4%) of patients treated with durvalumab, and 13 deaths (5.6%) of patients treated with placebo.
“In my opinion, this is a very well-designed study, and the results are very promising,” commented Enriqueta Felip, MD, who was not involved in the PACIFIC trial.

“We need to wait for the overall survival results, but in my opinion this is a very valuable trial in a group of patients [for whom] we need new strategies,” she said.
Dr. Felip was invited to the briefing as an independent commentator.
Results of the interim analysis of the PACIFIC trial were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The PACIFIC trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Paz-Ares has received consultancy fees from the company. Dr. Felip disclosed financial relationships with multiple companies not including AstraZeneca.