Subtype-specific activity in liposarcoma (LPS) patients (pts) from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study of eribulin (ERI) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in pts with advanced LPS and leiomyosarcoma (LMS).

Authors

null

Sant P. Chawla

Director, Sarcoma Oncology Center, Santa Monica, CA

Sant P. Chawla , Patrick Schöffski , Giovanni Grignani , Jean-Yves Blay , Robert G. Maki , David R. D'Adamo , Matthew Guo , George D. Demetri

Organizations

Director, Sarcoma Oncology Center, Santa Monica, CA, Department of General Medical Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione del Piemonte per l'Oncologia IRCC, Candiolo, Italy, Universite Claude Bernard & Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, Eisai Inc, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: A recent phase 3 study (NCT01327885, Lancet 2016, in press) comparing ERI with DTIC in pts with advanced LPS or LMS, showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the ERI arm with a manageable toxicity profile. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ERI in LPS pts. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 yrs with advanced dedifferentiated, myxoid, round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by multimodality therapy and from 3 geographic regions were included. Pts with ECOG status ≤ 2 and ≥ 2 prior systemic treatment regimens, including an anthracycline, were randomized 1:1 to ERI (1.4 mg/m2, IV on D1 and D8) or DTIC (850, 1000, or 1200 mg/m2, IV on D1) every 21-D until disease progression. OS, progression free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed in LPS pts. Results: 143 pts with LPS (38% female; 76% < 65 yrs; 45% dedifferentiated, 39% myxoid/round cell, 16% pleomorphic LPS), representing 32% of the total study population, were included in this pre-planned analysis (71 ERI; 72 DTIC). Median OS for LPS pts receiving ERI vs DTIC was 15.6 vs 8.4 mo (HR = 0.51, [95% CI 0.35 0.75]; P= 0.001). OS benefit with ERI vs DTIC was observed independent of LPS histology (dedifferentiated—18.0 vs 8.1 mo, HR = 0.43 [95% CI 0.23, 0.79]; myxoid/round cell—13.5 vs. 9.6 mo, HR = 0.79 [95% CI 0.42, 1.49]; pleomorphic—22.2 vs 6.7 mo, HR = 0.18 [95% CI 0.04, 0.85]) and independent of geographic region. PFS in LPS pts for ERI vs DTIC was also improved (2.9 vs 1.7 mo, HR = 0.52, [95% CI 0.35–0.78]; P= 0.002). The mean number of treatment cycles for ERI vs DTIC was 6.5 and 3.2, respectively. In the ERI and DTIC arms, 100% and 96% of LPS pts had adverse events (AEs). Most frequent AEs in the ERI arm were alopecia (40%), fatigue (40%), neutropenia (39%), and nausea (39%). AEs of ≥ grade (G) 3 occurred in 63% and 51% of LPS pts in the ERI and DTIC arms, respectively. Peripheral sensory neuropathy of G3 occurred in 3% of LPS pts in the ERI arm, with no incidence of G4 or G5. Conclusions: ERI was associated with a significant benefit in OS and PFS compared with DTIC in LPS pts and represents an active agent against LPS, sarcomas for which limited effective treatments are available. Clinical trial information: NCT01327885

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2016 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Sarcoma

Track

Sarcoma

Sub Track

Soft Tissue Tumors

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT01327885

Citation

J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl; abstr 11037)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.11037

Abstract #

11037

Poster Bd #

163

Abstract Disclosures