3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of TRC105 Plus Pazopanib vs Pazopanib Alone for Treatment of Patients With Advanced Angiosarcoma : A Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial investigates whether carotuximab plus pazopanib improves progression-free survival vs pazopanib alone in adult patients with advanced angiosarcoma.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does the combination of pazopanib plus carotuximab improve progression-free survival compared with pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma?

          Findings

          This phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 123 patients found no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients receiving pazopanib plus carotuximab compared with pazopanib alone.

          Meaning

          The study’s findings indicate that the combination of pazopanib plus carotuximab is not superior to pazopanib alone in treating patients with advanced angiosarcoma.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Angiosarcoma is a rare sarcoma subtype with a poor outcome. Carotuximab plus pazopanib produced a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.8 months in pazopanib-naive patients with chemotherapy-refractory angiosarcoma in a phase 1/2 trial.

          Objective

          To determine whether carotuximab plus pazopanib improves PFS compared with pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          The TAPPAS Trial: An Adaptive Enrichment Phase 3 Trial of TRC105 and Pazopanib vs Pazopanib Alone in Patients With Advanced Angiosarcoma was a multinational, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 123 patients 18 years or older with advanced angiosarcoma that was conducted between February 16, 2017, and April 12, 2019, at 31 sites in the US and the European Union. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pazopanib alone or carotuximab plus pazopanib. The trial incorporated an adaptive enrichment design. Inclusion criteria were no more than 2 prior lines of systemic therapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The efficacy analysis used the intent-to-treat population; the safety analysis included all patients who received a dose of either study drug.

          Exposures

          Oral pazopanib, 800 mg/d, or intravenous carotuximab, 10 mg/kg, administered weekly, plus oral pazopanib, 800 mg/d, with dose modification allowed per patient tolerance or until disease progression.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary end point was PFS, assessed by blinded independent radiographic and cutaneous photographic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines, version 1.1. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and overall survival. An interim analysis to determine the final sample size was conducted after enrollment of 123 patients. PFS in the group receiving pazopanib alone was compared with PFS in the group receiving carotuximab plus pazopanib using the log rank test.

          Results

          Of 114 patients with evaluable data (53 in the pazopanib arm and 61 in the carotuximab plus pazopanib arm), 69 (61%) were female and the median age was 68 years (range, 24-82 years); 57 (50%) had cutaneous disease and 32 (28%) had had no prior treatment. The primary end point (PFS) was not reached (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.52-1.84; P = .95), with a median of 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.9 months to not reached) for pazopanib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.3 months) for the combination arm. The most common all-grade adverse events in the single-agent pazopanib arm vs the combination arm were fatigue (29 patients [55%] vs 37 [61%]), headache (12 patients [23%] vs 39 [64%]), diarrhea (27 patients [51%] vs 35 [57%]), nausea (26 patients [49%] vs 29 [48%]), vomiting (12 patients [23%] vs 23 [38%]), anemia (5 patients [9%] vs 27 [44%]), epistaxis (2 patients [4%] vs 34 [56%]), and hypertension (29 patients [55%] vs 22 [36%]).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, carotuximab plus pazopanib did not improve PFS compared with pazopanib alone in patients with advanced angiosarcoma.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979899

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

            Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7-4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9-1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24-0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6-14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7-12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67-1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel for unresectable angiosarcoma: the ANGIOTAX Study.

              The objective of this phase II trial was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel for patients with metastatic or unresectable angiosarcoma. Thirty patients were entered onto the study from April 2005 through October 2006. Paclitaxel was administered intravenously as a 60-minute infusion at a dose of 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle. The primary end point was the nonprogression rate after two cycles. The progression-free survival rates after 2 and 4 months were 74% and 45%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 8 months, the median time to progression was 4 months and the median overall survival was 8 months. The progression-free survival rate was similar in patients pretreated with chemotherapy and in chemotherapy-naïve patients (77% v 71%). Three patients with locally advanced breast angiosarcoma presented partial response, which enabled a secondary curative-intent surgery with complete histologic response in two cases. One toxic death occurred as a result of a thrombocytopenia episode. Six patients presented with grade 3 toxicities and one patient presented with a grade 4 toxicity. Anemia and fatigue were the most frequently reported toxicities. Weekly paclitaxel at the dose schedule used in the current study was well tolerated and demonstrated clinical benefit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncol
                JAMA Oncology
                American Medical Association
                2374-2437
                2374-2445
                31 March 2022
                May 2022
                31 March 2022
                : 8
                : 5
                : 740-747
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Sarcoma Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
                [3 ]Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
                [4 ]Sarcoma Oncology Research Center, Santa Monica, California
                [5 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
                [6 ]Bergonie Institute, Bordeaux, France
                [7 ]Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
                [8 ]University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [9 ]Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
                [10 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
                [11 ]Cytel Clinical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [12 ]TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc, San Diego, California
                [13 ]Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: May 27, 2021.
                Published Online: March 31, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3547
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2022 Jones RL et al. JAMA Oncology.
                Corresponding Author: Robin L. Jones, MD, Sarcoma Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, United Kingdom ( robin.jones4@ 123456nhs.net ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Jones had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Jones, Ravi, Chawla, Attia, Adams, Theuer, Maki.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Jones, Ravi, Ganjoo, Italiano, Attia, Thornton, Liu, Robertson, Theuer, Maki.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Jones, Ravi, Brohl, Chawla, Ganjoo, Italiano, Attia, Burgess, Cranmer, Cheang, Adams, Theuer, Maki.
                Statistical analysis: Jones, Cheang, Liu, Robertson, Theuer.
                Obtained funding: Theuer.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Jones, Chawla, Ganjoo, Robertson, Adams, Theuer.
                Supervision: Jones, Ganjoo, Attia, Cranmer, Adams, Theuer, Maki.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Prof Jones reported receiving grants from TRACON Pharmaceuticals to conduct the trial and personal fees from Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii Sankyo, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, Merck, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate outside the submitted work; in addition, Prof Jones had a patent pending for Biomarker. Dr Brohl reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, EMD Serono, and Deciphera outside the submitted work. Dr Chawla reported receiving grants or contracts from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sarcoma Alliance for Research Through Collaboration (SARC), Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, Inhibrx, and NKMAX; personal fees from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, NKMAX, and Inhibrx; payment or honoraria from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, Inhibrx, NKMAX, and Tyme; and stock or stock options from AADi, Cellestia Biotech, and Immix BioPharma outside the submitted work. Dr Italiano reported receiving personal fees from Bayer, Merck, Roche, and SpringWorks; grants from Merck Sharp & Dohm, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and nonfinancial support from Birdie Pharmaceuticals and Epizyme outside the submitted work. Dr Attia reported receiving grants from TRACON Pharmaceuticals Research funding to institution only to pay for conduct of study to conduct the trial and grants from AB Science, Bayer, Novartis, Lilly, Immune Design, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Epizyme, Blueprint, Genmab, CBA Pharma, the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation, Merck, Philogen, Gradalis, Deciphera, Takeda, Incyte, SpringWorks, Adaptimmune, Advenchen Laboratories, Bavarian Nordic, BTG Research, PTC Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, and Forma Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Burgess reported receiving grants from Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Cranmer reported receiving grants from TRACON Pharmaceuticals to conduct the trial as well as grants from Eli Lilly, AADi, Blueprint Medicines, Iterion, Gradalis, Philogen, Advenchen Laboratories, and CBA Pharma and personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr Cheang reported receiving royalties for the Breast Cancer Bioclassifier patent. Ms Robertson reported being an employee of TRACON Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. Ms Adams reported receiving personal fees from and being an employee of TRACON Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from TRACON Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr Theuer reported being an employee of TRACON Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. Dr Maki reported receiving grants and personal fees from TRACON Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study and receiving grants from Bayer, SpringWorks, Genentech, and Presage; personal fees from Deciphera, AADi, Karyopharm, Physicians’ Education Resource, SpringWorks, the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Association for Cancer Research, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; and royalties from UpToDate, Springer, and Wiley outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The trial was funded by TRACON Pharmaceuticals.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: TRACON Pharmaceuticals was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Article
                coi210054
                10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3547
                8972152
                35357396
                2f09d808-02e9-45df-836a-63e154180145
                Copyright 2022 Jones RL et al. JAMA Oncology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 16 March 2021
                : 27 May 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article