Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Cancer Med ; 10(17): 5748-5756, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34405547

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions used to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM), including granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, are burdensome to patients and associated with greater costs to health care systems. We evaluated the utilization of supportive care interventions and their relationship with the myeloprotective agent, trilaciclib. METHODS: Data were pooled from three independent randomized phase 2 clinical trials of trilaciclib or placebo administered prior to chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The impact of supportive care on the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), occurrence of severe neutropenia (SN), and occurrence of RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was analyzed across cycles 1-4. Concordance and association between grade 3/4 anemia, RBC transfusions on/after week 5, and ESA administration was also evaluated. RESULTS: The use of G-CSFs, ESAs, or RBC transfusions on/after week 5 was significantly lower among patients receiving trilaciclib versus placebo (28.5% vs. 56.3%, p < 0.0001; 3.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0254; and 14.6% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.0252, respectively). Compared with placebo, trilaciclib significantly reduced DSN and SN, irrespective of G-CSF administration. RBC transfusions and ESAs were most often administered in patients with grade 3/4 anemia; however, patients typically received RBC transfusions over ESA administration. CONCLUSIONS: By improving CIM and reducing the need for associated supportive care, trilaciclib has the potential to reduce the burden of myelosuppression on patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02499770; NCT03041311; NCT02514447).


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neutropenia/induzido quimicamente , Pirimidinas/uso terapêutico , Pirróis/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Masculino , Pirimidinas/farmacologia , Pirróis/farmacologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estudos Retrospectivos , Carcinoma de Pequenas Células do Pulmão/patologia
2.
J Clin Oncol ; 39(21): 2327-2338, 2021 07 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33513313

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab monotherapy is standard first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% without actionable driver mutations. It is not known whether adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab improves efficacy over pembrolizumab alone in this population. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-598 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03302234), eligible patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK aberrations were randomly allocated 1:1 to ipilimumab 1 mg/kg or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 18 doses; all participants received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 doses. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 568 participants, 284 were randomly allocated to each group. Median overall survival was 21.4 months for pembrolizumab-ipilimumab versus 21.9 months for pembrolizumab-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.37; P = .74). Median progression-free survival was 8.2 months for pembrolizumab-ipilimumab versus 8.4 months for pembrolizumab-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.30; P = .72). Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 62.4% of pembrolizumab-ipilimumab recipients versus 50.2% of pembrolizumab-placebo recipients and led to death in 13.1% versus 7.5%. The external data and safety monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped for futility and that participants discontinue ipilimumab and placebo. CONCLUSION: Adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab does not improve efficacy and is associated with greater toxicity than pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. These data do not support use of pembrolizumab-ipilimumab in place of pembrolizumab monotherapy in this population.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Antígeno B7-H1/efeitos dos fármacos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Ipilimumab/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/farmacologia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/farmacologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Ipilimumab/farmacologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
3.
J Thorac Oncol ; 15(10): 1657-1669, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32599071

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: In the randomized KEYNOTE-407 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02775435), pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (chemotherapy) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC. We report updated efficacy outcomes from the protocol-specified final analysis and, for the first time, progression on next line of treatment. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to chemotherapy plus either pembrolizumab (n = 278) or placebo (n = 281). After positive results from the second interim analysis, patients still receiving placebo could cross over to pembrolizumab monotherapy at the time of confirmed progressive disease. The primary end points were OS and PFS. PFS-2 (time from randomization to progression on next-line treatment/death, whichever occurred first) was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: After median (range) follow-up of 14.3 (0.1-31.3) months, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to exhibit a clinically meaningful improvement over placebo plus chemotherapy in OS (median, 17.1 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 14.4‒19.9] versus 11.6 mo [95% CI: 10.1‒13.7]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI: 0.58‒0.88]) and PFS (median, 8.0 mo [95% CI: 6.3‒8.4] versus 5.1 mo [95% CI: 4.3‒6.0]; HR, 0.57 [95% CI: 0.47‒0.69]). PFS-2 was longer for patients randomized to first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.59 [95% CI: 0.49‒0.72]). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 74.1% and 69.6% of patients receiving pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to exhibit substantially improved OS and PFS in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC. The PFS-2 outcomes support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard first-line treatment in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC.


Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...