Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
Randomized trial of anetumab ravtansine and pembrolizumab compared to pembrolizumab for mesothelioma.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование II фазыКлиническое исследование I фазыМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mansfield Aaron S, Vivien Yin Jun, Bradbury Penelope, Kwiatkowski David J, Patel Shiven, Bazhenova Lyudmila A, Forde Patrick, Lou Yanyan, Dizona Paul, Villaruz Liza C, Arnold Susanne M, Khalil Maya, Kindler Hedy L, Koczywas Marianna, Pacheco Jose, Rolfo Christian, Xia Bing, Mikula Elizabeth, Chen Li, Patel Kashish, Smith Katherine E R, Cao Liang, Shapiro Geoffrey, Costello Brian A, Adjei Alex, Sharon Elad, Moscow Jeffrey A, Zamboni William, Hassan Raffit
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The mesothelin-targeting antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine was evaluated in combination with the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab based on the common expression of mesothelin and reports of activity in mesothelioma.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase 1 safety run-in of the combination of anetumab ravtansine (6.5 mg/kg iv q3weeks) and pembrolizumab (200 mg, IV q3weeks) was conducted, followed by a phase 2 randomization to the combination or pembrolizumab alone at medical centers across the United States and Canada in the National Cancer Institute's Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network. Patients with pleural mesothelioma that expressed mesothelin and had previously received platinum-based therapy were eligible.
RESULTS: In phase 1 (n = 12) only one dose limiting toxicity was observed and the rules for dose reduction were not met. In phase 2, there was no difference in the confirmed response rates between the combination group (n = 18, 2 partial responses [PR], 11 %) and the pembrolizumab group (n = 17, 1 PR, 6 %; z = -0.5523, p = 0.29116). The median PFS was 12.2 months (95 % CI 5.1-not evaluable [NE]) for the combination, and 3.9 months for pembrolizumab (95 % CI 2.1-NE)(HR=0.55, p = 0.20). Patients with high baseline levels of soluble mesothelin who received anetumab ravtansine had a median PFS of 5 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The numeric difference in PFS between treatment groups was not statistically significant, likely related to a smaller than planned sample size. High levels of soluble mesothelin should potentially be considered to select against the use of mesothelin-targeting therapies in development that are neutralized by soluble mesothelin.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase 1 safety run-in of the combination of anetumab ravtansine (6.5 mg/kg iv q3weeks) and pembrolizumab (200 mg, IV q3weeks) was conducted, followed by a phase 2 randomization to the combination or pembrolizumab alone at medical centers across the United States and Canada in the National Cancer Institute's Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network. Patients with pleural mesothelioma that expressed mesothelin and had previously received platinum-based therapy were eligible.
RESULTS: In phase 1 (n = 12) only one dose limiting toxicity was observed and the rules for dose reduction were not met. In phase 2, there was no difference in the confirmed response rates between the combination group (n = 18, 2 partial responses [PR], 11 %) and the pembrolizumab group (n = 17, 1 PR, 6 %; z = -0.5523, p = 0.29116). The median PFS was 12.2 months (95 % CI 5.1-not evaluable [NE]) for the combination, and 3.9 months for pembrolizumab (95 % CI 2.1-NE)(HR=0.55, p = 0.20). Patients with high baseline levels of soluble mesothelin who received anetumab ravtansine had a median PFS of 5 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The numeric difference in PFS between treatment groups was not statistically significant, likely related to a smaller than planned sample size. High levels of soluble mesothelin should potentially be considered to select against the use of mesothelin-targeting therapies in development that are neutralized by soluble mesothelin.