V Bernstein1, S L Ellard2, S F Dent3, D Tu4, M Mates5, S K Dhesy-Thind6, L Panasci7, K A Gelmon8, M Salim9, X Song3, M Clemons3, D Ksienski10, S Verma3, C Simmons8, H Lui4, K Chi8, H Feilotter11, L J Hagerman4, L Seymour4. 1. BC Cancer Agency, Victoria, BC, V8R 6V5, Canada. vbernste@bccancer.bc.ca. 2. BC Cancer Agency, Kelowna, BC, Canada. 3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston, ON, Canada. 5. Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston, ON, Canada. 6. Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 7. Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8. BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 9. Allan Blair Cancer Centre, Regina, SK, Canada. 10. BC Cancer Agency, Victoria, BC, V8R 6V5, Canada. 11. Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pelareorep, a serotype 3 reovirus, has demonstrated preclinical and early clinical activity in breast cancer and synergistic cytotoxic activity with microtubule targeting agents. This multicentre, randomized, phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding pelareorep to paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: Following a safety run-in of 7 patients, 74 women with previously treated mBC were randomized either to paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks plus pelareorep 3 × 1010 TCID50 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 every 4 weeks (Arm A) or to paclitaxel alone (Arm B). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), circulating tumour cell counts, safety, and exploratory correlative analyses. All comparisons used a two-sided test at an alpha level of 20%. Survival analyses were adjusted for prior paclitaxel. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 29.5 months. Pelareorep was well tolerated. Patients in Arm A had more favourable baseline prognostic variables. Median adjusted PFS (Arm A vs B) was 3.78 mo vs 3.38 mo (HR 1.04, 80% CI 0.76-1.43, P = 0.87). There was no difference in response rate between arms (P = 0.87). Median OS (Arm A vs B) was 17.4 mo vs 10.4 mo (HR 0.65, 80% CI 0.46-0.91, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This first, phase II, randomized study of pelareorep and paclitaxel in previously treated mBC did not show a difference in PFS (the primary endpoint) or RR. However, there was a significantly longer OS for the combination. Further exploration of this regimen in mBC may be of interest.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Pelareorep, a serotype 3 reovirus, has demonstrated preclinical and early clinical activity in breast cancer and synergistic cytotoxic activity with microtubule targeting agents. This multicentre, randomized, phase II trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding pelareorep to paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: Following a safety run-in of 7 patients, 74 women with previously treated mBC were randomized either to paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks plus pelareorep 3 × 1010 TCID50 intravenously on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 every 4 weeks (Arm A) or to paclitaxel alone (Arm B). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), circulating tumour cell counts, safety, and exploratory correlative analyses. All comparisons used a two-sided test at an alpha level of 20%. Survival analyses were adjusted for prior paclitaxel. RESULTS: Final analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 29.5 months. Pelareorep was well tolerated. Patients in Arm A had more favourable baseline prognostic variables. Median adjusted PFS (Arm A vs B) was 3.78 mo vs 3.38 mo (HR 1.04, 80% CI 0.76-1.43, P = 0.87). There was no difference in response rate between arms (P = 0.87). Median OS (Arm A vs B) was 17.4 mo vs 10.4 mo (HR 0.65, 80% CI 0.46-0.91, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This first, phase II, randomized study of pelareorep and paclitaxel in previously treated mBC did not show a difference in PFS (the primary endpoint) or RR. However, there was a significantly longer OS for the combination. Further exploration of this regimen in mBC may be of interest.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Oncolytic virus; Paclitaxel; Phase 2; Randomized; Reovirus
Authors: Jason P Fernandes; Francisca Cristi; Heather E Eaton; Patricia Chen; Sarah Haeflinger; Isabelle Bernard; Mary M Hitt; Maya Shmulevitz Journal: J Virol Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Jonathan G Pol; Sarah Lévesque; Samuel T Workenhe; Shashi Gujar; Fabrice Le Boeuf; Derek R Clements; Jean-Eudes Fahrner; Laetitia Fend; John C Bell; Karen L Mossman; Jitka Fucikova; Radek Spisek; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer; Lorenzo Galluzzi Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Ahmed A Mostafa; Daniel E Meyers; Chandini M Thirukkumaran; Peter J Liu; Kathy Gratton; Jason Spurrell; Qiao Shi; Satbir Thakur; Don G Morris Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 6.639