H H Yoon1, J C Bendell2, F S Braiteh3, I Firdaus4, P A Philip5, A L Cohn6, N Lewis7, D M Anderson8, E Arrowsmith9, J D Schwartz10, L Gao10, Y Hsu10, Y Xu10, D Ferry10, S R Alberts11, Z A Wainberg12. 1. Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN yoon.harry@mayo.edu. 2. GI Cancer Research Program, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville. 3. Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas. 4. Medical Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Oncology Hematology Care, Inc., Cincinnati. 5. Department of Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute/Wayne State University, Detroit. 6. Medical Oncology, Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers/US Oncology, Denver. 7. Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. 8. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, Metro-Minnesota Community Clinical Oncology Program, St. Louis Park. 9. Medical Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, Chattanooga. 10. Oncology, Eli Lilly and Company, Bridgewater. 11. Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 12. Division of Hematology Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure-response analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure-response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS. CONCLUSION: The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01246960.
BACKGROUND: We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure-response analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69-1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure-response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS. CONCLUSION: The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01246960.
Authors: Yan Feng; Amit Roy; Eric Masson; Tai-Tsang Chen; Rachel Humphrey; Jeffrey S Weber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Fernando Rivera; Joan Maurel; Jean-Pierre M Ayoub; Malcolm J Moore; Andres Cervantes; Timothy R Asmis; Jonathan D Schwartz; Federico Nasroulah; Shaila Ballal; Josep Tabernero Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-03-27
Authors: J Wang; P Song; S Schrieber; Q Liu; Q Xu; G Blumenthal; L Amiri Kordestani; P Cortazar; A Ibrahim; R Justice; Y Wang; S Tang; B Booth; N Mehrotra; A Rahman Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Charles S Fuchs; Jiri Tomasek; Cho Jae Yong; Filip Dumitru; Rodolfo Passalacqua; Chanchal Goswami; Howard Safran; Lucas Vieira Dos Santos; Giuseppe Aprile; David R Ferry; Bohuslav Melichar; Mustapha Tehfe; Eldar Topuzov; John Raymond Zalcberg; Ian Chau; William Campbell; Choondal Sivanandan; Joanna Pikiel; Minori Koshiji; Yanzhi Hsu; Astra M Liepa; Ling Gao; Jonathan D Schwartz; Josep Tabernero Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Joerg Thomas Hartmann; Stephan Probst; Harald Schmalenberg; Stephan Hollerbach; Ralf Hofheinz; Volker Rethwisch; Gernot Seipelt; Nils Homann; Gerhard Wilhelm; Gunter Schuch; Jan Stoehlmacher; Hans Günter Derigs; Susanna Hegewisch-Becker; Johannes Grossmann; Claudia Pauligk; Akin Atmaca; Carsten Bokemeyer; Alexander Knuth; Elke Jäger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bruce J Giantonio; Paul J Catalano; Neal J Meropol; Peter J O'Dwyer; Edith P Mitchell; Steven R Alberts; Michael A Schwartz; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter C Enzinger; Barbara Ann Burtness; Donna Niedzwiecki; Xing Ye; Kathe Douglas; David H Ilson; Victoria Meucci Villaflor; Steven J Cohen; Robert J Mayer; Alan Venook; Al Bowen Benson; Richard M Goldberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vincent T Janmaat; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast; Ron Hj Mathijssen; Marco J Bruno; Maikel P Peppelenbosch; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon Cw Spaander Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Ryan H Moy; Gustavo Dos Santos Fernandes; Philip Jonsson; Joanne F Chou; Azfar Basunia; Geoffrey Y Ku; Sree B Chalasani; Michelle S Boyar; Zoe Goldberg; Avni M Desai; Amelia Gabler; Michael F Berger; Laura H Tang; Jaclyn F Hechtman; David P Kelsen; Mark Schattner; David H Ilson; David B Solit; Barry S Taylor; Nikolaus Schultz; Marinela Capanu; Yelena Y Janjigian Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-09-30