INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 randomized phase II study of Depatux-M alone and with temozolomide vs temozolomide or lomustine in recurrent EGFR amplified glioblastoma

BACKGROUND: Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M) is a tumor-specific antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an antibody (ABT-806) directed against activated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the toxin monomethylauristatin-F. We investigated Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide or as a single agent in a randomized controlled phase II trial in recurrent EGFR amplified glioblastoma. METHODS: Eligible were patients with centrally confirmed EGFR amplified glioblastoma at first recurrence after chemo-irradiation with temozolomide. Patients were randomized to either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks intravenously, or this treatment combined with temozolomide 150-200 mg/m2 day 1-5 every 4 weeks, or either lomustine or temozolomide. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty patients were randomized. In the primary efficacy analysis with 199 events (median follow-up 15.0 mo), the hazard ratio (HR) for the combination arm compared with the control arm was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.50, 1.02; P = 0.062). The efficacy of Depatux-M monotherapy was comparable to that of the control arm (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.48; P = 0.83). The most frequent toxicity in Depatux-M treated patients was a reversible corneal epitheliopathy, occurring as grades 3-4 adverse events in 25-30% of patients. In the long-term follow-up analysis with median follow-up of 28.7 months, the HR for the comparison of the combination arm versus the control arm was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.48, 0.93). CONCLUSION: This trial suggests a possible role for the use of Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide in EGFR amplified recurrent glioblastoma, especially in patients relapsing well after the end of first-line adjuvant temozolomide treatment. (NCT02343406)

Impact of depatuxizumab mafodotin on health-related quality of life and neurological functioning in the phase II EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 trial for EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m, Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status. RESULTS Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6-35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02343406

Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

International audienc

Adjuvant and concurrent temozolomide for 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma (CATNON; EORTC study 26053-22054): second interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

Background The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear. Methods This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59.4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m(2) per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150-200 mg/m(2) temozolomide given on days 1-5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990. Findings Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55.7 months (IQR 41.0-77.3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66.9 months [95% CI 45.7-82.3] with concurrent temozolomide vs 60.4 months [45.7-71.5] without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio [HR] 0.97 [99.1% CI 0.73-1.28], p=0.76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82.3 months [95% CI 67.2-116.6] vs 46.9 months [37.9-56.9]; HR 0.64 [95% CI 0.52-0.79], p<0.0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Patterns of oral anticoagulant use and outcomes in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation: a post-hoc analysis from the GLORIA-AF Registry

Background: Previous studies suggested potential ethnic differences in the management and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF). We aim to analyse oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription, discontinuation, and risk of adverse outcomes in Asian patients with AF, using data from a global prospective cohort study. Methods: From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase II-III (November 2011-December 2014 for Phase II, and January 2014-December 2016 for Phase III), we analysed patients according to their self-reported ethnicity (Asian vs. non-Asian), as well as according to Asian subgroups (Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other Asian). Logistic regression was used to analyse OAC prescription, while the risk of OAC discontinuation and adverse outcomes were analysed through Cox-regression model. Our primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The original studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01468701, NCT01671007, and NCT01937377. Findings: 34,421 patients were included (70.0&nbsp;±&nbsp;10.5 years, 45.1% females, 6900 (20.0%) Asian: 3829 (55.5%) Chinese, 814 (11.8%) Japanese, 1964 (28.5%) Korean and 293 (4.2%) other Asian). Most of the Asian patients were recruited in Asia (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;6701, 97.1%), while non-Asian patients were mainly recruited in Europe (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;15,449, 56.1%) and North America (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;8378, 30.4%). Compared to non-Asian individuals, prescription of OAC and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) was lower in Asian patients (Odds Ratio [OR] and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 0.23 [0.22-0.25] and 0.66 [0.61-0.71], respectively), but higher in the Japanese subgroup. Asian ethnicity was also associated with higher risk of OAC discontinuation (Hazard Ratio [HR] and [95% CI]: 1.79 [1.67-1.92]), and lower risk of the primary composite outcome (HR [95% CI]: 0.86 [0.76-0.96]). Among the exploratory secondary outcomes, Asian ethnicity was associated with higher risks of thromboembolism and intracranial haemorrhage, and lower risk of major bleeding. Interpretation: Our results showed that Asian patients with AF showed suboptimal thromboembolic risk management and a specific risk profile of adverse outcomes; these differences may also reflect differences in country-specific factors. Ensuring integrated and appropriate treatment of these patients is crucial to improve their prognosis. Funding: The GLORIA-AF Registry was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH

Correction to: Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

International audienceIn this article, the name of the GLORIA-AF investigator Anastasios Kollias was given incorrectly as Athanasios Kollias in the Acknowledgements. The original article has been corrected