BackgroundStandard therapy for glioblastoma includes surgery, radiotherapy, and temozolomide. This Phase 3 trial evaluates the addition of an autologous tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax®-L) to standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.MethodsAfter surgery and chemoradiotherapy, patients were randomized (2:1) to receive temozolomide plus DCVax-L (n = 232) or temozolomide and placebo (n = 99). Following recurrence, all patients were allowed to receive DCVax-L, without unblinding. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsFor the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 331), median OS (mOS) was 23.1 months from surgery. Because of the cross-over trial design, nearly 90% of the ITT population received DCVax-L. For patients with methylated MGMT (n = 131), mOS was 34.7 months from surgery, with a 3-year survival of 46.4%. As of this analysis, 223 patients are ≥ 30 months past their surgery date; 67 of these (30.0%) have lived ≥ 30 months and have a Kaplan-Meier (KM)-derived mOS of 46.5 months. 182 patients are ≥ 36 months past surgery; 44 of these (24.2%) have lived ≥ 36 months and have a KM-derived mOS of 88.2 months. A population of extended survivors (n = 100) with mOS of 40.5 months, not explained by known prognostic factors, will be analyzed further. Only 2.1% of ITT patients (n = 7) had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event that was deemed at least possibly related to the vaccine. Overall adverse events with DCVax were comparable to standard therapy alone.ConclusionsAddition of DCVax-L to standard therapy is feasible and safe in glioblastoma patients, and may extend survival.Trial registration Funded by Northwest Biotherapeutics; Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00045968; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00045968?term=NCT00045968&rank=1; initially registered 19 September 2002
ImportanceGlioblastoma is the most lethal primary brain cancer. Clinical outcomes for glioblastoma remain poor, and new treatments are needed.ObjectiveTo investigate whether adding autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccine (DCVax-L) to standard of care (SOC) extends survival among patients with glioblastoma.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 3, prospective, externally controlled nonrandomized trial compared overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (nGBM) and recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) treated with DCVax-L plus SOC vs contemporaneous matched external control patients treated with SOC. This international, multicenter trial was conducted at 94 sites in 4 countries from August 2007 to November 2015. Data analysis was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021.InterventionsThe active treatment was DCVax-L plus SOC temozolomide. The nGBM external control patients received SOC temozolomide and placebo; the rGBM external controls received approved rGBM therapies.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary and secondary end points compared overall survival (OS) in nGBM and rGBM, respectively, with contemporaneous matched external control populations from the control groups of other formal randomized clinical trials.ResultsA total of 331 patients were enrolled in the trial, with 232 randomized to the DCVax-L group and 99 to the placebo group. Median OS (mOS) for the 232 patients with nGBM receiving DCVax-L was 19.3 (95% CI, 17.5-21.3) months from randomization (22.4 months from surgery) vs 16.5 (95% CI, 16.0-17.5) months from randomization in control patients (HR = 0.80; 98% CI, 0.00-0.94; P = .002). Survival at 48 months from randomization was 15.7% vs 9.9%, and at 60 months, it was 13.0% vs 5.7%. For 64 patients with rGBM receiving DCVax-L, mOS was 13.2 (95% CI, 9.7-16.8) months from relapse vs 7.8 (95% CI, 7.2-8.2) months among control patients (HR, 0.58; 98% CI, 0.00-0.76; P < .001). Survival at 24 and 30 months after recurrence was 20.7% vs 9.6% and 11.1% vs 5.1%, respectively. Survival was improved in patients with nGBM with methylated MGMT receiving DCVax-L compared with external control patients (HR, 0.74; 98% CI, 0.55-1.00; P = .03).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, adding DCVax-L to SOC resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant extension of survival for patients with both nGBM and rGBM compared with contemporaneous, matched external controls who received SOC alone.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00045968
6003 Background: Combination cediranib (C) and olaparib (O) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with relapsed platinum (plat)-sensitive high-grade ovarian cancer (ovca) compared to O alone in a Phase 2 trial (NCT01116648). We conducted this randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (NCT02446600) to assess whether combination C+O, or O alone, was superior to standard of care (SOC) plat-based therapy in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca. Methods: Eligible pts had recurrent plat-sensitive [ > 6-month plat-free interval (PFI)] high-grade serous or endometrioid, or BRCA-related, ovca. One prior non-plat therapy and unlimited prior plat-therapies were allowed; prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor were exclusions. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to SOC (carboplatin/paclitaxel; carboplatin/gemcitabine; or carboplatin/liposomal doxorubicin), O (300mg twice daily), or C+O (C 30mg daily + O 200mg twice daily). Randomization was stratified by g BRCA status, PFI (6-12 vs > 12 months), and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Target sample size was 549 pts; primary analysis occurred 2 years after the last pt enrolled. The primary endpoint was PFS. Type 1 error = 0.025 was controlled by a gatekeeping hierarchy that assessed C+O vs SOC, then O alone vs SOC, and finally C+O vs O. All maintenance therapy was prohibited. Results: Between 4FEB2016 and 13NOV2017, 565 pts enrolled (187 SOC, 189 O, 189 C+O), and 528 pts initiated treatment (166 SOC, 183 O, 179 C+O). 23.7% of patients had g BRCAmut. Median follow-up was 29.1 months. 53 pts on SOC initiated non-protocol therapy (predominantly PARP inhibitor maintenance) before disease progression. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.856 (95% CI 0.66-1.11, p = 0.08, 1-tail) between C+O and SOC and 1.20 (95% CI 0.93-1.54) between O and SOC, with median PFS of 10.3, 8.2, and 10.4 months for SOC, O, and C+O, respectively. Response rates were 71.3% (SOC), 52.4% (O), and 69.4% (C+O). In gBRCA pts, HR for PFS was 0.55 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) for C+O vs SOC, and 0.63 (95% CI 0.37-1.07) for O vs SOC. In non-g BRCA pts, HR for these comparisons was 0.97 (95% CI 0.73-1.30) and 1.41 (1.07-1.86). No OS differences between arms were observed at 44% events. Pts receiving C+O (vs SOC) had more frequent Grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal (30.1% vs 8.4%), hypertension (31.7% vs 1.8%), and fatigue events (17.5% vs 1.8%). Conclusion: C+O demonstrated similar activity to SOC in relapsed plat-sensitive ovca but did not meet the primary endpoint of improved PFS. Clinical trial information: NCT02446600.
The effect of high dose ascorbate on urinary oxalate levels in healthy adults was investigated using a modified ion chromatography method. Subjects ingested 1, 5 and 10 gm. supplemental ascorbate per day for 5 days, separated by 5 days of no supplementation. Urine ascorbate levels demonstrated variable increases with ascorbate supplementation. Ascorbate added directly to urine in vitro resulted in statistically significant but modest increases in measured oxalate. Addition of 5.68 mmol./l. ascorbate increased measured urinary oxalate by 36 mumol./l., implying conversion of ascorbate to oxalate during analysis. Measurement of 24-hour urinary oxalate levels with 5 and 10 gm. ascorbate per day showed similar, modest increases, which could be entirely accounted for by oxalate production during analytical procedures. Thus, no genuine increase in urinary oxalate was demonstrable despite a greatly increased ascorbate intake.
PURPOSE Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, –2.0 to –0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed. CONCLUSION Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.