Time filter

Source Type

Hawkins R.E.,Christie NHS Foundation Trust | Gore M.,Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust | Shparyk Y.,State Regional Treatment and Diagnostics Oncology Center | Bondar V.,Public Clinical Treatment and Prophylaxis Institution | And 12 more authors.
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2016

Purpose: To prospectively determine the efficacy of naptumomab estafenatox (Nap) + IFNα versus IFN in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Experimental Design: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II/III study, 513 patients with RCC received Nap (15 μg/kg i. v. in three cycles of four once-daily injections) + IFN (9 MU s. c. three times weekly), or the same regimen of IFN monotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: This phase II/III study did not meet its primary endpoint. Median OS/PFS for Nap + IFN patients was 17.1/5.8 months versus 17.5/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.56; HR, 1.08/P = 0.41; HR, 0.92). Post hoc exploratory subgroup and trend analysis revealed that the baseline plasma concentrations of anti-SEA/E-120 (anti-Nap antibodies) for drug exposure and IL6 for immune status could be used as predictive biomarkers. A subgroup of patients (SG; n = 130) having concentrations below median of anti-SEA/E-120 and IL6 benefitted greatly from the addition of Nap. In SG, median OS/PFS for the patients treated with Nap + IFN was 63.3/13.7 months versus 31.1/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.02; HR, 0.59/P = 0.02; HR, 0.62). Addition of Nap to IFN showed predicted and transient immune related AEs and the treatment had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. Nap + IFN has an acceptable safety profile, and results from post hoc subgroup analyses showed that the treatment might improve OS/PFS in a baseline biomarker-defined RCC patient subgroup. The results warrant further studies with Nap in this subgroup. ©2016 AACR. Source

Clemens M.R.,Klinikum Mutterhaus de Borromaerinnen GmbH | Gladkov O.A.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Gartner E.,Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute | Vladimirov V.,Pyatigorsk Oncology Dispensary | And 4 more authors.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Year: 2015

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of YM155, a survivin suppressor, in combination with docetaxel, compared with docetaxel alone in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This phase II, multicenter, open-label, 2-arm study randomized patients (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and ≥1 measurable lesion, to receive docetaxel alone or docetaxel plus YM155. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to response (TTR), biomarker assessment, and analysis of circulating tumor cells. Patients were women diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer; most had received prior drug therapies. The median PFS was 8.4 months with YM155 plus docetaxel (n = 50) and 10.5 months with docetaxel alone (n = 51; HR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.83, 2.83; P = 0.176). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary endpoints, although slightly greater OS (630 vs 601 days; P = 0.768), CBR (84.3 vs 82.0 %; P = 0.855), DOR, and TTR were observed with docetaxel alone compared with YM155 plus docetaxel, whereas ORR was similar (25.5 vs 26.0). The most common TEAEs observed with YM155 plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone were neutropenia (83.3 vs 84.3 %), alopecia (62.5 vs 52.9 %), fatigue (50 vs 41.2 %), and nausea (37.5 vs 41.2 %). Although YM155 is a novel drug that suppresses survivin, YM155 plus docetaxel exhibited no statistically significant differences in endpoints compared with docetaxel alone. The combination regimen was well tolerated. © 2014, The Author(s). Source

Gladkov O.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Ramlau R.,Poznan University of Medical Sciences | Serwatowski P.,Alfred Sokolowski Specialized Hospital | Milanowski J.,Medical University of Lublin | And 5 more authors.
Anti-Cancer Drugs | Year: 2015

The humanized KS-interleukin-2, tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2; EMD 273066), is an EpCAM-specific immunocytokine with reported immunologic activity in combination with cyclophosphamide. This Phase 2, randomized, open-label study compared tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide, administered as maintenance, with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) who responded to first-line platinumbased chemotherapy with/without prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Patients received cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2, Day 1 of every 3-week cycle), followed by tucotuzumab (1.5 mg/m2, Days 2-4) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), treatment response, and safety. The 6-month PFS rate was lower in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group (n=64) than in the BSC group (n=44): 6.4 versus 12.2% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98; 80% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.31]. HRs for PFS, time to progression, and OS indicated a similar risk of disease progression and death in both groups and best overall responses were generally comparable. For patients with previous PCI (n=26), there was a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged median PFS (1.7 vs. 1.5 months; HR: 0.60; 80% CI: 0.33-1.11) and OS (21.5 vs. 14.3 months; HR: 0.58; 80% CI: 0.31-1.05) in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group. Adverse events were more frequent with tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide (92.2%) than with BSC (47.7%). Tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide was well tolerated in ED-SCLC patients, but did not show PFS or OS benefits compared with BSC. The observed trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in the subgroup of patients receiving previous PCI may support further confirmation in a larger population. © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Source

Gladkov O.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Moiseyenko V.,Nn Petrov Research Institute Of Oncology | Bondarenko I.N.,Dnipropetrovsk State Medical Academy | Shparyk Y.,Lviv Cancer Center | And 3 more authors.
Oncologist | Year: 2015

Objectives. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Methods. Breast cancer patients (n=256) were randomized to 40 or 50 mg of subcutaneous balugrastim or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ≈24 hours after chemotherapy (60 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 75 mg/m2 docetaxel, every 21 days for up to 4 cycles).The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Secondary parameters included DSN (cycles 2–4), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir, febrile neutropenia rates, and time to ANC recovery (cycles 1–4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were assessed. Results. Mean cycle 1 DSN was 1.0 day with 40mg of balugrastim, 1.3 with 50mg of balugrastim, and 1.2 with pegfilgrastim (upperlimit of 95% confidence intervals for between-group DSN differences was,1.0 day for both balugrastim doses versus pegfilgrastim). Between-group efficacy parameters were comparable except for time to ANC recovery in cycle 1 (40 mg of balugrastim, 2.0 days; 50mg of balugrastim, 2.1; pegfilgrastim, 2.6).Median terminal elimination half-life was ≈37 hours for 40 mg of balugrastim, ≈36 for 50mgof balugrastim, and ≈45 for pegfilgrastim.Antibody response to balugrastimwas low and transient, with no neutralizing effect. Conclusion. Once-per-cycle balugrastim is not inferior to pegfilgrastim in reducing cycle 1 DSN in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy; both drugs have comparable safety profiles. © AlphaMed Press 2016. Source

Gladkov O.,Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary | Moiseyenko V.,Nn Petrov Research Institute Of Oncology | Bondarenko I.N.,Dnepropetrovsk Medical Academy | Shparyk Y.,Lviv Cancer Center | And 4 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2015

Balugrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose recombinant protein comprising human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor under development for prevention of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This phase II, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated balugrastim safety and efficacy versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy and investigated two doses with similar efficacy to pegfilgrastim for a subsequent phase III study. Patients received four cycles of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy and with each successive cycle were randomized sequentially to escalating doses of balugrastim [30 (n = 11), 40 (n = 21), or 50 mg (n = 20)] or a fixed dose of pegfilgrastim [6 mg (n = 26)] post-chemotherapy. Balugrastim doses were escalated as planned. The incidence of adverse events was similar among the balugrastim groups and between all balugrastim doses and pegfilgrastim. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea. During cycle 1, severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of <0.5 × 109/L) occurred in 40, 67, and 50 % and febrile neutropenia occurred in 20.0, 9.5, and 10.0 % of patients receiving balugrastim 30, 40, and 50 mg, respectively; in patients receiving pegfilgrastim, 48 % experienced severe neutropenia and 8 % experienced febrile neutropenia. Duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) for each treatment group was 0.9, 1.6, 1.1, and 0.9 days, respectively. In the remaining three chemotherapy cycles, DSN was ≤1 day across all treatment groups. Balugrastim 50 mg was comparable to pegfilgrastim in terms of safety and overall efficacy in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Source

Discover hidden collaborations