Julia Hocke

mRECIST to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two randomised phase II trials comparing nintedanib vs sorafenib

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been shown to be a poor surrogate for survival benefit with targeted therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Anti-angiogenic-specific adverse events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with nintedanib and docetaxel

OBJECTIVES LUME-Lung 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial investigating nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with nintedanib+docetaxel in the overall population and overall survival was significantly improved in the pre-specified analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the frequency of characteristic adverse events (AEs) commonly seen with existing anti-angiogenic agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS The incidence and intensity of AEs were evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication (N=1307) and for the two main histologies: adenocarcinoma (n=653) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; n=553). AEs of special interest were analyzed by category, preferred term, and worst CTCAE grade and included perforation, hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events, and skin disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with all-grade gastrointestinal (GI) perforations was low and balanced between arms (0.5% in both) and across histologies; the incidence of non-GI perforations was 1.2% with nintedanib+docetaxel versus 0.2% with placebo+docetaxel. The incidence of some events was higher with nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel; hypertension (3.5% vs 0.9%), rash (11.0% vs 8.1%), and cutaneous adverse reactions (13.0% vs 10.7%). Rash and cutaneous adverse reactions were predominantly Grade 1-2 with both treatments. The incidence of all-grade bleeding was also slightly higher in nintedanib+docetaxel-treated patients (14.1% vs 11.6%) driven by between-treatment differences in the SCC subpopulation; most events were Grade 1-2. The proportion of patients with a thromboembolic event was low and comparable between arms for all grades (5.1% vs 4.6%) and Grade ≥3 (2.1% vs 3.1%). Safety evaluation of the LUME-Lung 1 study showed that the frequency of AEs commonly associated with other anti-angiogenic agents was lower with nintedanib+docetaxel. Survival benefits from addition of nintedanib to docetaxel in patients with adenocarcinoma after first-line therapy can be achieved alongside a manageable safety profile.

471PEFFECT OF NINTEDANIB (BIBF 1120) COMBINED WITH STANDARD 2ND-LINE DOCETAXEL IN NSCLC PATIENTS WHO RECEIVED PRIOR PEMETREXED IN LUME-LUNG 1: A RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED PHASE III TRIAL

ABSTRACT Aim: Nintedanib (N) is an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor of VEGF, PDGF and FGF signalling. Primary analysis of the LUME-Lung 1 trial (NCT00805194; 1199.13) showed a significant improvement in PFS with N + docetaxel (D) in NSCLC patients (pts) regardless of histology; OS was also significantly improved in adenocarcinoma (adeno) pts. Pemetrexed (PEM) is a standard 1st-line and maintenance treatment for nonsquamous NSCLC pts. To determine whether prior PEM would influence outcomes of pts in LUME-Lung 1, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of N + D in pts who received 1st-line and maintenance PEM. Methods: 1314 pts with Stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC were randomised to receive either N 200 mg bid + D 75 mg/m2 q21d (n = 655) or placebo (Pl) + D (n = 659) in LUME-Lung 1. Retrospective subgroup analyses according to prior PEM treatment (1st line or maintenance) were performed to determine OS and safety. Results: The percentage of pts with adeno tumour histology who were treated 1st line with PEM along with platinum was approximately 19% (N arm, n = 61; Pl arm, n = 65). Pt characteristics were balanced across groups. OS results according to receipt of any PEM 1st-line and maintenance therapy for adeno pts are shown in the table. For all pts and those with adeno histology in particular, no significant difference in OS was noted between those who did or did not receive PEM; no significant interaction between treatment groups and any PEM treatment was observed. Further, slightly more pts in the N arms across all subgroups experienced grade ≥3 adverse events; diarrhoea and reversible increases in liver enzymes occurred more frequently in pts in both N arms. OS results in NSCLC pts with adeno histology who received 1st-line and/or maintenance PEM No PEM 1st-line PEM 1st-line No maintenance PEM 1st-line Maintenance PEM 1st-line N n = 261 Pl n = 271 N n = 61 Pl n = 65 N n = 309 Pl n = 322 N n = 13 Pl n = 14 Median OS, months 13.4 10.8 12.0 8.0 12.6 10.0 18.9 12.8 HR (95% CI); p-value 0.83 (0.68–1.00); p = 0.05 0.79 (0.53–1.18); p = 0.25 0.84 (0.70–1.00); p = 0.05 0.78 (0.30–2.07); p = 0.62 Interaction between treatment & subgroup variable, p-value p = 0.9026 p = 0.7162 Conclusions: On-study treatment with N + D resulted in a comparably favourable improvement in OS regardless of whether pts with adeno tumours were treated 1st line with a PEM- or non-PEM-containing platinum doublet. Disclosure: A. Mellemgaard: Advisory Board: Boehringer Ingelheim; J. von Pawel: Advisory Board/Consultant: AbbVie, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals; J. Barrueco: Employee: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA; H. Buchner, J. Hocke and R. Kaiser: Employee: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH KG, Germany;S. Novello: Advisory Board/Honoraria/Invited Speaker: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; J. Douillard: Advisory Board: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Roche; Educational Symposia: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer; Research Grants: Merck Serono; M. Reck: Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-la Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A Phase I/Randomized Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Nintedanib versus Sorafenib in Asian Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Nintedanib is an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor/platelet-derived growth factor/fibroblast growth factor receptors. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in terms of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib versus sorafenib in Asian patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients and Methods: For the phase I portion, patients were stratified into two groups according to their alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST) and Child-Pugh score at baseline. For phase I, the primary endpoint was determination of the MTD in terms of DLTs. For phase II, patients with a Child-Pugh score of 5–6, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, and an ALT/AST ≤2× the upper limit of normal were enrolled and randomized 2: 1 to nintedanib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (the MTD determined in phase I) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. continuously in 28-day cycles until intolerable adverse events (AEs) or disease progression (PD); treatment beyond PD was allowed if clinical benefit was perceived. The primary endpoint for phase II was time to progression (TTP) by central independent review (CIR; by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0); the secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS). All analyses were exploratory. Results: The MTD was 200 mg in both groups. For phase II, 95 patients were randomized to nintedanib (n = 63) or sorafenib (n = 32). For nintedanib and sorafenib, respectively, the median CIR TTP was 2.8 vs. 3.7 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–2.01) and the median OS 10.2 vs. 10.7 months (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.59–1.49). Nintedanib-treated patients had fewer grade 3 or higher AEs (56 vs. 84%), serious AEs (46 vs. 56%), and AEs leading to dose reduction (19 vs. 59%) and drug discontinuation (24 vs. 34%). AEs associated more frequently with nintedanib were vomiting and nausea, whereas those associated more frequently with sorafenib were ALT/AST increases, diarrhea, rash, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome. Conclusions: Nintedanib showed numerically similar efficacy to sorafenib for CIR TTP and OS in Asian patients with advanced HCC and adequate liver function. AEs were generally manageable.

A multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II study to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BackgroundThis multicentre, open-label, phase-I/randomised phase-II trial evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum-tolerated-dose (MTD) per dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and efficacy of nintedanib vs. sorafenib in European patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC).MethodsPhase I: Patients were stratified into two groups per baseline aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase and Child-Pugh score; MTD was determined. Phase II: Patients were randomised 2:1 to nintedanib (MTD) or sorafenib (400-mg bid) in 28-day cycles until intolerance or disease progression. Time-to-progression (TTP, primary endpoint), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined.ResultsPhase-I: no DLTs observed; nintedanib MTD in both groups was 200 mg bid. Phase-II: patients (N = 93) were randomised to nintedanib (n = 62) or sorafenib (n = 31); TTP was 5.5 vs. 4.6 months (HR = 1.44 [95% CI, 0.81–2.57]), OS was 11.9 vs. 11.4 months (HR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52–1.47]), PFS was 5.3 vs. 3.9 months (HR = 1.35 [95% CI, 0.78–2.34]), respectively (all medians). Dose intensity and tolerability favoured nintedanib. Fewer patients on nintedanib (87.1%) vs. sorafenib (96.8%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) or grade ≥ 3 AEs (67.7% vs. 90.3%), but more patients on nintedanib (28 [45.2%]) had AEs leading to drug discontinuation than did those on sorafenib (7 [22.6%]).ConclusionsNintedanib may have similar efficacy to sorafenib in aHCC.

Multi-state Models Used in Oncology Trials

Among the surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in oncological trials, progression-free survival (PFS) is used as an important endpoint especially in first or second line of cancer therapies. Basic formulae for the determination of sample sizes based on time to event data can be found in the literature. Assumptions about the distributions of the survival time for OS and PFS, the accrual time and the censoring time are of key importance. Most often only uniformly distributed patient accrual and no censoring are mentioned, whereas the event time is assumed to be exponentially distributed. Considering the dependence between PFS and OS, we will investigate how a three-state model that includes states of progression/response and death can be used for a joint modelling of progression-free survival and overall survival. Sample size/power calculations are discussed for the three-state model and compared to the estimations based on exponentially distributed OS times. These sample size calculations are based on the assumption of piecewise uniformly accrual and exponentially distributed censoring time. The new three-state model approach results in a 10–30 % lower sample size and a corresponding higher power. An application to a Phase III lung cancer trial illustrates how the new approach can be successfully applied to the planning of a trial and to the monitoring of the needed events for the PFS and OS analyses.