Back to Search Start Over

Efficacy/safety analysis of a phase 2 study of ruxolitinib (Rux) + regorafenib (Re) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Authors :
Gene Brian Saylors
Laurent Mineur
Pilar Alfonso
Maria Luisa Limon Miron
Peter O'Neill
Julie Switzky
John Nemunaitis
Li Zhou
Allen Lee Cohn
Christophe Borg
Daniel Blake Flora
David R. Fogelman
Johanna C. Bendell
Antonio Cubillo
Jose María Vieitez
Albert Assad
Mark D. Kochenderfer
Source :
Journal of Clinical Oncology. 35:663-663
Publication Year :
2017
Publisher :
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2017.

Abstract

663 Background: The JAK-STAT pathway plays a role in the systemic inflammatory response in CRC. Rux, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, was evaluated in r/r mCRC pts. Methods: After a safety run-in (Rux 20 mg BID + Re 160 mg QD), pts were randomized to Rux 15 mg BID or placebo (Pb) + Re 160 mg QD. Rux could be titrated to 20 mg BID. The randomized phase included Substudy 1 (S1, pts with C-reactive protein [CRP] > 10 mg/L) and Substudy 2 (S2, pts with CRP ≤ 10 mg/L). Primary endpoint: OS. Results: Rux 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). 396 pts were randomized (S1: n = 175; S2: n = 221). Median age in Rux vs (v) Pb groups: 62 v 60 yr (S1), 59 v 61 yr (S2). Most pts had ≥ 3 prior chemotherapy regimens: 85% v 84% (S1); 81% v 78% (S2). Median treatment durations: 57 d with Rux v 56 d with Pb (S1), 106 d with Rux v 56 d with Pb (S2). Discontinuations were mainly due to disease progression (S1: 61% v 63%, S2: 62% v 66%) or AEs (S1: 10% v 19%, S2: 9% v 9%). Rux + Re did not improve OS/PFS over Re + Pb in S1/S2 (see Table). S1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis; S2 was terminated per sponsor decision. The number of events required for final efficacy analysis was reached in S1, not in S2. Most common non-hematologic AEs (Rux v Pb): palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; S1: 42% v 44%; S2: 58% v 47%), diarrhea (S1: 38% v 31%; S2: 39% v 27%), decreased appetite (S1: 37% v 36%; S2: 26% v 33%), fatigue (S1: 34% v 36%; S2: 41% v 44%), hypertension (S1: 21% v 26%; S2: 42% v 40%). Most common grade (G) 3/4 non-hematologic AEs: PPES (S1: 13% v 15%; S2: 17% v 13%) and hypertension (S1: 9% v 7%; S2: 22% v 16%). Most common G 3/4 hematologic AEs (new/worsening lab abnormalities): lymphopenia (S1: 13% v 8%; S2: 14% v 7%) and anemia (S1: 4% v 5%; S2: 9% v 4%). Conclusions: Rux + Re did not improve OS/PFS in mCRC pts over Re alone. There was a nonsignificant trend towards improved OS/PFS in S2. Rux 15-20 mg BID safety profile was consistent with previous studies in other tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02119676. [Table: see text]

Details

ISSN :
15277755, 0732183X, and 02119676
Volume :
35
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi...........bec626b3ab1c22e88d2ddbc48e9dfa03