Search

Triple-class-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) describes MM refractory to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the Phase IIb STORM study (NCT02336815), oral selinexor plus low-dose dexamethasone (Sel-dex) demonstrated a 26.2% overall response rate in triple-class-refractory MM. Here, we compare overall survival (OS) of 122 patients with triple-class-refractory MM who received Sel-dex in STORM Part 2 with that of 64 similar patients treated with other available therapies in a Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD) cohort. OS from the date that the patients MM became triple-class-refractory was longer in STORM versus FHAD, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (P =  .0002; adjusted HR 0.35 [P  =  .011]). In a subset analysis of highly resistant patients receiving further therapies after their MM first became at least triple-class-refractory (i.e., who received Sel-dex in STORM, n = 64, and non-Sel-dex in FHAD, n = 36), the OS was significantly longer in STORM with an unadjusted HR of 0.52 (P = .0331; adjusted HR 0.33 [P = .041]). Within the limits of this analysis, the OS of patients with at least triple-class-refractory MM was significantly better with Sel-dex versus available therapies, suggesting that Sel-dex may be associated with a meaningful OS benefit in these patients.

Somatic KIT activating mutations drive most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Disease progression eventually develops with first-line imatinib, commonly due to KIT secondary mutations, and different kinase inhibitors have various levels of treatment efficacy dependent on specific acquired resistance mutations. Ripretinib is a broad-spectrum switch-control KIT/PDGFRA tyrosine kinase inhibitor for patients with advanced GIST who received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA analysis from the second-line INTRIGUE trial determined that patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib harboring primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations restricted to KIT exons 17/18 had greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib. We describe the rationale and design of INSIGHT (NCT05734105), an ongoing Phase III open-label study of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib exclusively harboring KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations detected by circulating tumor DNA. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT05734105 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Plain Language Summary Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is rare, but it is the most common mesenchymal tumor (a type of tumor that develops from cells which give rise to soft tissues) of the gastrointestinal tract. The primary treatment for advanced GIST is medication that targets the abnormal mechanisms in cancer cells in order to block tumor growth and spread. Ripretinib is an inhibitor of a protein known as KIT, which is a member of the tyrosine kinase protein family and is involved in the growth of GIST. In a Phase III clinical trial called INTRIGUE, the effects of ripretinib and another receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sunitinib, were compared in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with the drug imatinib. An exploratory analysis from the INTRIGUE trial that characterized baseline circulating tumor DNA in the blood showed a greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with gene mutations solely occurring in KIT exon 11 + 17 and/or 18 (exon 11 + 17/18). This article describes the rationale and design for a Phase III clinical trial called INSIGHT that will evaluate the benefit of ripretinib compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST whose tumors have mutations in KIT exon 11 and KIT exon 17 and/or 18. Patients will receive ripretinib or sunitinib in 6-week cycles, and investigators will assess survival without cancer progression as the primary outcome, and overall survival, and response of the tumor to these two drugs as secondary outcomes. Tweetable Abstract This article describes the rationale and design for the INSIGHT Phase III trial evaluating patients with second-line advanced GIST who harbor primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations restricted to the activation loop (KIT exons 17/18). Executive summary Disease overview & management Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common gastrointestinal sarcoma, with approximately 80% of cases driven by activating mutations in KIT. Sunitinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved as a second-line therapy for advanced GIST after disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib. Ripretinib is a broad-spectrum switch-control KIT/PDGFRA TKI approved as a fourth-line therapy for advanced GIST. Differential activity of ripretinib & sunitinib against secondary KIT mutations Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis from INTRIGUE determined that patients with KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations had improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) with sunitinib versus ripretinib, while those with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations had improved PFS, ORR and overall survival (OS) and a better safety profile with ripretinib versus sunitinib. Design INSIGHT is an international, Phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label study evaluating the efficacy of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib and who have KIT exon 11 mutations and co-occurring mutations exclusively in KIT exons 17/18, as identified by ctDNA. Approximately 54 patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD; continuous) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) in 6-week cycles. Eligible patients must have a histologic diagnosis of advanced GIST and co-occurring KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations confirmed by central laboratory ctDNA analysis, as well as radiologic progression on imatinib. The primary outcome measure is PFS based on blinded independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (mRECIST v1.1), while key secondary outcome measures are ORR based on blinded IRR using mRECIST v1.1 and OS. Infographic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Previous studies have proposed a simple product-based estimator for calculating exposure-specific risks (ESR), but the methodology has not been rigorously evaluated. The goal of our study was to evaluate the existing methodology for calculating the ESR, propose an improved point estimator, and propose variance estimates that will allow the calculation of confidence intervals (CIs). Methods We conducted a simulation study to test the performance of two estimators and their associated confidence intervals: 1) current (simple product-based estimator) and 2) proposed revision (revised product-based estimator). The first method for ESR estimation was based on multiplying a relative risk (RR) of disease given a certain exposure by an overall risk of disease. The second method, which is proposed in this paper, was based on estimates of the risk of disease in the unexposed. We then multiply the updated risk by the RR to get the revised product-based estimator. A log-based variance was calculated for both estimators. Also, a binomial-based variance was calculated for the revised product-based estimator. 95% CIs were calculated based on these variance estimates. Accuracy of point estimators was evaluated by comparing observed relative bias (percent deviation from the true estimate). Interval estimators were evaluated by coverage probabilities and expected length of the 95% CI, given coverage. We evaluated these estimators across a wide range of exposure probabilities, disease probabilities, relative risks, and sample sizes. Results We observed more bias and lower coverage probability when using the existing methodology. The revised product-based point estimator exhibited little observed relative bias (max: 4.0%) compared to the simple product-based estimator (max: 93.9%). Because the simple product-based estimator was biased, 95% CIs around this estimate exhibited small coverage probabilities. The 95% CI around the revised product-based estimator from the log-based variance provided better coverage in most situations. Conclusion The currently accepted simple product-based method was only a reasonable approach when the exposure probability is small (< 0.05) and the RR is ≤ 3.0. The revised product-based estimator provides much improved accuracy.

Background: Opioid use disorders (OUDs) are an epidemic causing catastrophic consequences to individuals, families, and society despite treatments including psychotherapy, substitution therapy or receptor blockers, and psychoeducation. We have developed a novel treatment that combines unilateral transcranial photobiomodulation (t-PBM) to the hemisphere with a more positive valence by Dual Brain Psychology (DBP). Methods: We used a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled protocol in which 22 patients with significant opioid cravings and a history of recent or current OUD attended three 1-h weekly sessions. After baseline measures of opioid craving and other psychometrics, subjects received two unilateral t-PBM applications (810 nm CW LED, 250 mW/cm2, 60 J/cm2, 4 min) or a sham (foil-covered LED) at F3 or F4. Prior to any treatment we used two tests to determine which hemisphere was more associated with a negative outlook and cravings and treated that side before the more positive hemisphere. Primary outcome measure was an opioid craving scale (OCS). Secondary outcomes were weekly Hamilton Depression (HDRS) and Anxiety (HARS) Rating Scales prior to treatments and at follow-up. Results: Immediately after treatment the OCS improved significantly for both the sham and active treatments, but one week later the active treatment showed a 51.0% (SD 33.7) decrease in OCS while a week after the sham treatments there was a decrease of only 15.8% (SD 35.0) (by Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test, p = 0.004) and by a mixed model it was p = 0.0071. The effect size for the differences between active and sham was 0.73. For the active treatment from before and after treatment the effect size was 1.51 and for the sham, 0.45. The HDRS improved from a baseline of 15.1 to 8.8 (SD 10.3) a week after the active treatment and to 13.3 (SD 12.9) after the sham (p = 0.0071). HARS improved from 14.7 to 8.0 (SD 13.2) after the active treatments and to 14.3 (SD 16.0) after the sham, p = 0.08. Active treatment of the positive hemisphere after the negative hemisphere significantly improved the OCS, but there was no significant difference after the sham treatment. One patient complained of 2 h of abdominal bloating and dropped out; no other adverse effects were observed. Discussion: Unilateral t-PBM to the hemisphere with a more positive hemispheric emotional valence was an effective and safe treatment for opioid cravings as well as for depression and anxiety. Our results also lend support to the underlying premises of DBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Brigatinib, ceritinib, and alectinib are approved to treat crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but no trial has compared them head-to-head. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to estimate the relative efficacy of these agents in the crizotinib-refractory setting.Methods: MAIC is a propensity score-type method that adjusts for differences in baseline characteristics between trials to estimate relative efficacy. Analyses were based on patient-level data from the ALTA trial for brigatinib and published summary-level trial data from ASCEND-1 and ASCEND-2 for ceritinib and NP28761 and NP28673 for alectinib. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared.Results: After matching, all key baseline characteristics were balanced between trials. Compared with ceritinib, brigatinib was associated with longer PFS (ASCEND-1: median 15.7 vs 6.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval] = 0.38 [0.26-0.57]; ASCEND-2: median = 18.3 vs 7.2 months, HR = 0.33 [0.20-0.56]) and OS (ASCEND-1: not available; ASCEND-2: median 27.6 vs 14.9 months, HR = 0.33 [0.17-0.63]). Versus alectinib, brigatinib was associated with longer PFS (NP28761: median = 17.6 vs 8.2 months, HR = 0.56 [0.36-0.86]; NP28673: median = 17.6 vs 8.9 months, HR = 0.61 [0.40-0.93]); results for OS were inconclusive (NP28761: median = 27.6 vs 22.7 months, HR = 0.70 [0.42-1.16]; NP28673: median = 27.6 vs 26.0 months, HR = 0.66 [0.39-1.09]). ORR was similar.Conclusion: In crizotinib-refractory ALK + NSCLC patients, relative efficacy estimates suggest brigatinib may have prolonged PFS and OS vs ceritinib and prolonged PFS vs alectinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]