Oct. 09, 2019 |
|
Feb. 28, 2024 |
|
jRCTs041190072 |
Quadruplet 1st line Treatment of CAPOXIRI plus Bevacizumab versus FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab for mCRC, Multicenter Randomised Phase II study (QUATTRO-II) |
|
A randomized phase II Study of CAPOXIRI plus Bevacizumab versus FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab for mCRC |
Dec. 02, 2022 |
|
112 |
|
Arm A (FOLFOXIRI+BEV) 51 patients vs Arm B (CAPOXIRI+BEV) 52 patients Age: Median (range) Arm A 60.0 (38-75) vs Arm B 60.0 (35-77) Sex: Male/Female (%) Arm A 36/15 (70.6/29.4) vs Arm B 27/25 (51.9/48.1) Primary tumor: Arm A (%) vs Arm B (%) Cecum 3 (5.9%) vs 1 (1.9%), Ascending colon 4 (7.8%) vs 10 (19.2%), Transverse colon 4 (7.8) %) vs 1(1.9%), Descending colon 5(9.8%) vs 3(5.8%), Sigmoid colon 11(21.6%) vs 21(40.4%), Rectal 24(47.1%) vs 16(30.8%) Site of primary lesion (right and left) : Left/Right (%) Arm A 40/11 (78.4/21.6) vs Arm B 40/12 (76.9/23.1) ECOG PS: 0/1(%) Arm A 46/5 (90.2/9.8) vs Arm B 49/3 (94.2/5.8) RAS/BRAF gene status: Wild type/Mutant type (%) Arm A 19/32 (37.3/62.7) vs Arm B 22/30 (42.3/57.7) UGT1A1 *6/*28: Wild type/Single heterozygote(%) Arm A 30/21 (58.8/41.2) vs Arm B 29/23 (55.8/44.2) Status of distant metastasis: Synchronous/Metachronous/Other (%) Arm A 43/7/1 (84.3/13.7/2.0) vs Arm B 39/11/2 (75.0/21.2/3.8) Number of organs with metastases: Median (range) Arm A 2.0 (1-5) vs Arm B 2.0 (1-5) Metastatic lesions (overlapped): Arm A (%) vs Arm B (%) Liver 36 (70.6%) vs 34 (65.4%), Lung 13 (25.5%) vs 22 (42.3%), Bone 4 (7.8%) vs 2(3.8%), Lymph node 25(49.0%) vs 13(25.0%), Pleura 1(2.0%) vs 2(3.8%), Peritoneum 11(21.6%) vs 19(36.5%), Other 8( 15.7%) vs 7(13.5%) Primary tumor status: Remaining/Resected (%) Arm A 27/24 (52.9/47.1) vs Arm B 27/25 (51.9/48.1) Adjuvant chemotherapy: Yes(%) Arm A 6 (11.8) vs Arm B 8 (15.4) |
|
This clinical study consists of STEP 1: drug dose confirmation phase for CAPOXIRI+BEV therapy, and STEP 2: efficacy and safety evaluation phase of CAPOXIRI+BEV therapy compared with FOLFOXIRI+BEV therapy. In STEP 1, we confirmed the occurrence of adverse events in 3 patients each, and considered whether to add patients (3 patients) or increase or reduce the dose of each drug based on the occurrence of DLT. Safety was confirmed in 3 patients who started treatment at the LEVEL 0 dose, so 3 patients were added at the LEVEL+1 dose, and since there were no safety issues, 3 more patients were added at the LEVEL+1 dose. Therefore, it was decided to implement STEP 2 at a dose of LEVEL+1. A total of 9 patients were registered in STEP 1. Enrollment in STEP 2 began in June 2020, and approximately 10 patients were enrolled every month. Registration ended at the end of June 2021 when 100 patients were reached. A total of 103 patients were registered in STEP 2. |
|
[STEP1] The serious AE incidence rate was 66.7% (2/3) during induction therapy and 0% (0/3) during maintenance therapy at Level 0, and 33.3% (2/6) during induction therapy and 25.0% (1/4) during maintenance therapy at Level +1. No deaths due to AE were observed. Serious AEs during induction therapy at Level 0 included ``decreased neutrophil count'' in 1 patient and ``diarrhea, anorexia, and dehydration'' in 1 patient. At Level+1, there were 2 patients of enteritis. [STEP2] The incidence of serious AEs was 29.4% (15/51) during induction therapy and 0% (0/32) during maintenance therapy in Arm A, and 17.3% (9/52) during induction therapy and 2.9% (1/35) during maintenance therapy in Arm B. The incidence of serious AEs during induction therapy was 1.7 times higher in Arm A than in Arm B (29.4% vs. 17.3%). There were no deaths due to AEs in both Arm. Serious AEs during induction therapy in Arm A included decreased neutrophil count in 7 patients, febrile neutropenia in 3 patients, encephalopathy in 2 patients, diarrhea, anorexia, gastrointestinal perforation, decreased white blood cell count, decreased platelet count, There was one patient each of constipation, back pain, intestinal obstruction, epilepsy, medical device-related infection, bacteremia, vertebral compression fracture, and unstable angina. In Arm B, there were 4 patients of diarrhea, anorexia, febrile neutropenia, 2 patients each, nausea, dehydration, enterocolitis, ileus, shock, pneumothorax, acute kidney injury, re-expansion pulmonary edema, and abdominal abscess in 1 patient each. |
|
Primary endpoint (PFS): Median PFS was 10.61 (7.66 - 13.34) months in Arm A and 10.91 (9.26 - 14.29) months in Arm B, and the point estimate of HR in Arm B using Arm A as reference The value (95% CI) was 1.114 (0.695 - 1.784), with no significant difference (P = 0.654), and the point estimate of HR in Arm B, X, satisfied 0.8<X<1.25, indicating that the treatment results of the two arms were were equivalent. Secondary endpoints: ORR The number of patients responding to induction therapy [ORR (95% CI)] was 36 patients [70.6% (56.2% - 82.5%)] in Arm A and 41 patients [78.8% (65.3% - 88.9%)] in Arm B. The number of patients responding to induction therapy + maintenance therapy [ORR (95% CI)] was 39 patients [76.5% (62.5% - 87.2%)] in Arm A and 44 patients [84.6% (71.9% - 93.1%)] in Arm B. OS Median OS cannot be calculated due to insufficient follow-up period in Arm A, and cannot be calculated due to insufficient follow-up period in Arm B. HR in Arm B using Arm A as reference was 0.771 (0.371 - 1.602), with no significant difference (P=0.485). Tumor response The proportion of patients with comprehensive tumor response (CR+PR) was approximately half of the patients in both arms at 32 weeks +- 2 weeks, 60.0% (15/25) in Arm A and 84.0% in Arm B. (21/25). PRO assessment (FACT/GOG-Ntx4 PSN) In both arms A and B, the measured values for four types of evaluation items increased from baseline to 48 weeks after the start of treatment, but overall there was no difference in PRO assessment (FACT/GOG-Ntx4/PSN) between the two arms. |
|
Compared to FOLFOXIRI+BEV therapy for patients with unresectable advanced/recurrent colorectal cancer treated for the first time, CAPOXIRI+BEV therapy is equivalent in terms of PFS and safety. The low incidence of AEs suggested the usefulness of CAPOXIRI+BEV therapy. |
|
Feb. 27, 2024 |
|
May. 31, 2023 |
|
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.3565 |
No |
|
- |
|
https://jrct.mhlw.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs041190072 |
Tsuji Akihito |
||
Kagawa University Hospital |
||
1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa-ken |
||
+81-87-898-5111 |
||
atsuji@med.kagawa-u.ac.jp |
||
Tsuji Akihito |
||
Kagawa University Hospital |
||
1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa-ken |
||
+81-87-898-5111 |
||
atsuji@med.kagawa-u.ac.jp |
Complete |
Sept. 01, 2019 |
||
Nov. 08, 2019 | ||
112 | ||
Interventional |
||
randomized controlled trial |
||
open(masking not used) |
||
active control |
||
parallel assignment |
||
treatment purpose |
||
1.Obtaining informed consent prior to study-specific screening procedures |
||
1.Previously treated with irradiation to bone marrow constituting 20% or more of irradiation field. |
||
20age old over | ||
No limit | ||
Both |
||
Metastatic colorectal cancer |
||
Step1: Confirmation of dosage of each drug (Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan) |
||
Colorectal cancer |
||
Progression-free survival (PFS) |
||
Overall response rate (ORR) |
Chugai Pharmaceutical CO.,LTD. | |
Not applicable |
Shizuoka Cancer Center Clinical Research Review Board | |
1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka-ken, Shizuoka | |
+81-55-989-5222 |
|
rinsho_office@scchr.jp | |
Approval | |
Aug. 29, 2019 |
Clinical Trials.gov |
none |