ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. RESULTS: Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC (n = 66) was 56.1% (43.3-68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7-81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8-72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0-84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.
Subject(s)
Biphenyl Compounds/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Basal Cell/drug therapy , Pyridines/therapeutic use , Skin Neoplasms/drug therapy , Adult , Anilides/therapeutic use , Biphenyl Compounds/administration & dosage , Biphenyl Compounds/adverse effects , Confidence Intervals , Disease Progression , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Pyridines/administration & dosage , Pyridines/adverse effects , Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Sonidegib is approved to treat locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) in the USA, EU, Switzerland, and Australia and metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) in Switzerland and Australia in patients not amenable to surgery or radiotherapy. Vismodegib is approved to treat patients with mBCC, recurrent laBCC, or those not candidates for surgery or radiation. There is no head-to-head trial comparing Hedgehog inhibitors. We describe time to onset and severity of adverse events (AEs) in two studies reporting cumulative AE incidence every treatment cycle: the sonidegib phase 2 BOLT study and the expanded-access, open-label vismodegib study. METHODS: This analysis included patients with histologically confirmed laBCC or mBCC from BOLT who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily (QD) and patients from the vismodegib study who received vismodegib 150 mg QD. Cumulative occurrence of AEs and median time to AE onset were calculated on 30-day cycles for sonidegib and 28-day cycles for vismodegib. AEs were graded for severity using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Only common (at least 15% incidence) AEs were analyzed in this study. RESULTS: Over 18 treatment cycles, the most common all-grade AEs for sonidegib and vismodegib were muscle spasm (54.4% vs 70.6%; P = 0.0236), alopecia (49.4% vs 58.0%; no significant difference [NS]), and dysgeusia (43.0% vs 70.6%; P = 0.0003); incidences of diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and weight decrease were 31.6% vs 25.2% (NS), 39.2% vs 19.3% (P = 0.0032), 32.9% vs 19.3% (P = 0.0429), and 30.4% vs 16.0% (P = 0.0217), respectively. Sonidegib-treated patients had more delayed median time to onset for all AEs than vismodegib-treated patients, except fatigue and weight decrease (NS). Most AEs reported were grade ≤ 2. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis suggests lower overall incidence and slower onset of certain AEs in patients treated with sonidegib compared with vismodegib. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the relevance of these findings needs further studies to provide conclusive evidence.
