Phase 3 Randomized Study of Telcyta + Doxorubicin Versus Doxorubicin in Platinum Refractory or Resistant Ovarian Cancer

NCT00350948TerminatedPHASE3INTERVENTIONAL

Summary

Key Facts

Lead Sponsor

Telik

Enrollment

244

Start Date

2006-05-01

Completion Date

2008-12-01

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Official Title

Phase 3 Randomized Study of TLK286 (Telcyta®) in Combination With Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil/Caelyx)Versus Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil/Caelyx) as Second-Line Therapy in Platinum Refractory or Resistant Ovarian Cancer (ASSIST-5)

Interventions

TelcytaLiposomal Doxorubicin

Conditions

Ovarian Neoplasms

Eligibility

Age Range

18 Years+

Sex

FEMALE

Inclusion Criteria:

* Are a woman 18 years of age or older
* Have histologically or cytologically confirmed epithelial cancer or primary peritoneal cancer
* Have platinum refractory or resistant cancer
* Measurable disease according to radiographic RECIST criteria progression

Exclusion Criteria:

* Had treatment with first-line chemotherapy other than a platinum-containing regimen
* Have clinically significant cardiac disease
* Have any sign of intestinal obstruction interfering with nutrition
* Are pregnant or lactating
* Had prior treatment with liposomal doxorubicin
* Had prior treatment with Telcyta

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes

To demonstrate superiority in progression-free survival of TLK286 in combination with liposomal doxorubicin as compared with the active control arm liposomal doxorubicin

Time frame: Once 244 planned pts. received at least 2 cycles of study treatment(s)

Secondary Outcomes

To evaluate and compare the safety profile of each treatment arm

Time frame: Any patient who received 1 dose of study treatment(s) will be evaluable for safety.

Locations

Desert Oasis Cancer Center, Casa Grande, United States

Hematology Oncology Services of Arkansas, Little Rock, United States

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, United States

East Bay Medical Oncology/Hematology Medical Associates, Inc., Antioch, United States

Bay Area Cancer Research Group, LLC, Concord, United States

East Bay Medical Oncology/Hematology Medical Associates, Concord, United States

California Oncology of the Central Valley, Fresno, United States

Women's Cancer Research Foundation, Newport Beach, United States

Southwest Cancer Care, Poway, United States

Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group, Rancho Mirage, United States

Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, United States

East Bay Medical Oncoogy/Hematology Medical Associates, Inc., San Leandro, United States

Diablo Valley Oncology & Hematology Medical Group, Inc., Walnut Creek, United States

Gynecologic Oncology Associates, Inc, Hollywood, United States

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Jacksonville, United States

University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, United States

Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, United States

Florida Hospital, Orlando, United States

Gynecologic Oncology Associates, Inc, Pembroke Pines, United States

Memorial Health University Medical Center, Savannah, United States

Kaiser Permanente Moanalua Medical Center, Honolulu, United States

Flossmoor Cancer Care (JOHA DBA), Flossmoor, United States

Joliet Oncology-Hematology Associates, Joliet, United States

Joliet Oncology-Hematology Associates, LTD., Joliet, United States

Kankakee Cancer Center (JOHA DBA), Kankakee, United States

Joliet Oncology-Hematology Associates, Morris, United States

St. Vincent Gynecologic Oncology, Indianapolis, United States

Central Baptist Hospital, Lexington, United States

Hematology and Oncology Specialists, LLC, Metairie, United States

LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, United States

Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, United States

Arch Medical Services, St Louis, United States

Hematology & Oncology Consultants P.C., Omaha, United States

Horizon's West Medical Group, Scottsbluff, United States

The Women's Center of Western Nebraska, Scottsbluff, United States

Schwaartz Gynecologic Oncology, PLLC, Babylon, United States

The Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, United States

Monter Cancer Center, Lake Success, United States

North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, United States

Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, United States

Hope A Women's Cancer Center, Asheville, United States

Blumenthal Cancer Center, Charlotte, United States

Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, United States

Presbyterian Hospital, Charlotte, United States

Piedmont Hematology Oncology Associates-Lexington Satellite, Lexington, United States

Piedmont Hematology Oncology Associates, Winston-Salem, United States

Dakota Cancer Institute/Dakota Clinic Ltd., Fargo, United States

Gynecologic Oncology & Pelvic Surgery Associates, Columbus, United States

Garth Phibbs, M.D., FACOG, Toledo, United States

The Toledo Hospital, Toledo, United States

Kaiser Permanente NW, Oncology/Hematology, Portland, United States

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States

Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, United States

Hematology & Oncology Associates of NEPA, Dunmore, United States

Magee Women's Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, United States

Associates in Hematolog-Oncology, P.C., Upland, United States

Carolina Center of Gynecologic Oncology, Charleston, United States

Palmetto Health Alliance-Richland, Columbia, United States

South Carolina Oncology Associates, Columbia, United States

Arlington Cancer Center, Arlington, United States

Arlington Cancer Center, Trophy Club, United States

Danville Hematology & Oncology, Inc., Danville, United States

Carilion GYN Oncology Associates, Roanoke, United States

Algemeen Ziekenhuis Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium

A.Z. Groeninge Oncologish Centrum, Kortrijk, Belgium

Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven Dienst Oncologie, Leuven, Belgium

Hospital Vera Cruz-Instituto de Oncologia, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Centr de Oncologia do Instituto de Radiologia do Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Cerqueria Cesar, Brazil

Fundacao Hospital Amaral Carvalho, Rua Dona Siilveria, Brazil

Guy's & St. Thomas Cancer Centre, London, United Kingdom

Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom

Linked Papers

2023-07-05

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer

Cancer of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal origin, referred to collectively as ovarian cancer, is the eighth most common cancer in women and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are less well and have a limited life expectancy, therefore maintaining quality of life with effective symptom control is an important aim of treatment. However, the unwanted effects of chemotherapy agents may be severe, and optimal treatment regimens are unclear. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), which contains a cytotoxic drug called doxorubicin hydrochloride, is one of several treatment modalities that may be considered for treatment of relapsed EOCs. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review which was published in Issue 7, 2013. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PLD, with or without other anti-cancer drugs, in women with relapsed high grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) from 1990 to January 2022. We also searched online registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PLD in women diagnosed with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. Two review authors independently extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. Where possible, we pooled collected data in meta-analyses. This is an update of a previous review with 12 additional studies, so this updated review includes a total of 26 RCTs with 8277 participants that evaluated the effects of PLD alone or in combination with other drugs in recurrent EOC: seven in platinum-sensitive disease (2872 participants); 11 in platinum-resistant disease (3246 participants); and eight that recruited individuals regardless of platinum sensitivity status (2079 participants). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for the three most clinically relevant comparisons out of eight comparisons identified in the included RCTs. Recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC PLD with conventional chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but likely increases progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may slightly improve quality of life at three months post-randomisation, measured using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (mean difference 4.80, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.68; 1 study, 608 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this may not represent a clinically meaningful difference. PLD in combination with another chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in the rate of overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.30; 2 studies, 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PLD with chemotherapy likely increases anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; 5 studies, 1961 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD with conventional chemotherapy on hand-foot syndrome (HFS)(grade ≥ 3) (RR 4.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 16.01; 2 studies, 1028 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74; 4 studies, 1900 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Recurrent platinum-resistant EOC PLD alone compared to another conventional chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 6 studies, 1995 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD on PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; 4 studies, 1803 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.61 to 0.97; 2 studies, 964 participants; very low-certainty evidence), anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.19 to 0.82; 5 studies, 1968 participants; very low-certainty evidence), HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 15.19 to 109.15; 6 studies, 2184 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the rate of neurological events (grade ≥ 3)(RR ranged from 0.08 to 3.09; 3 studies, 1222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PLD with conventional chemotherapy compared to PLD alone likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21; 1 study, 242 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it may result in little to no difference in PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 2 studies, 353 participants; low-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.09; 1 study, 663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but likely results in a large reduction in HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31; 1 study, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence). In platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC, including PLD in a combination chemotherapy regimen probably makes little to no difference in OS compared to other combinations, but likely improves PFS. Choice of chemotherapy will therefore be guided by symptoms from previous chemotherapy and other patient considerations. Single-agent PLD remains a useful agent for platinum-resistant relapsed EOC and choice of agent at relapse will depend on patient factors, e.g. degree of bone marrow suppression or neurotoxicity from previous treatments. Adding another agent to PLD likely increases overall grade ≥ 3 adverse events with little to no improvement in survival outcomes. The limited evidence relating to PLD in combination with other agents in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC does not indicate a benefit, but there is some evidence of increased side effects.