Dataset Information

Equivalent efficacy study of QL1101 and bevacizumab on untreated advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: This phase 3 study aimed to test equivalence in efficacy and safety for QL1101, a bevacizumab analogue in Chinese patients with untreated locally advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel in combination with either QL1101 or bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg every 3-week for 6 cycles. This was followed by maintenance treatment with single agent QL1101 every 3-week. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR), with secondary end-points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs). Of 675 patients, 535 eligible patients were randomized to the QL1101 group (n = 269) and bevacizumab group (n = 266). ORRs were 52.8% and 56.8%, respectively, for the QL1101 and bevacizumab groups, with an ORR hazard ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.8-0131.1). The PFS, OS, DCR, and AEs were comparable between the 2 groups, which remained the same after stratification according to epidermal growth factor receptor mutation or smoking history. QL1101 showed similar efficacy and safety profiles as compared to bevacizumab among Chinese patients with untreated locally advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Chu T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330542 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Equivalent efficacy study of QL1101 and bevacizumab on untreated advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Chu Tianqing T Lu Jun J Bi Minghong M Zhang Helong H Zhuang Wu W Yu Yan Y Shi Jianhua J Chen Zhendong Z Zhang Xiaochun X Guo Qisen Q Liu Quan Q Wu Huijuan H Fang Jian J Hu Yi Y Wang Xiuwen X Han Cuicui C Li Kai K Han Baohui B

Cancer biology & medicine 20210301 3

<h4>Objective</h4>This phase 3 study aimed to test equivalence in efficacy and safety for QL1101, a bevacizumab analogue in Chinese patients with untreated locally advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel in combination with either QL1101 or bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg every 3-week for 6 cycles. This was followed by maintenance treatment with single agent QL1101 every 3-week. The primary ...[more]

PMID: 33710815

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe compared the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of MIL60 with reference bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in this phase 3, randomized, double-blind study.MethodsPatients with untreated advanced or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive either MIL60 or bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin. Patients with non-progressive disease continued maintenance single-agent MIL60 until disease progression, or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was the 12-week objective response rates (ORR12) by independent review committee (IRC) using RECIST 1.1. Bioequivalence was established if the ORR ratio located between 0.75 and 1/0.75. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03196986).FindingsBetween Aug 23, 2017, and May 8, 2019, 517 patients were randomly assigned to MIL60 group (n=257) and bevacizumab group (n=260). In the full analysis set (FAS) population including all randomized and evaluable patients who received at least one dose of MIL60 or bevacizumab, the ORR12 in MIL60 group and bevacizumab group were 48.6% and 43.1%, respectively. The ORR ratio of these two groups were 1.14 (90% CI 0.97-1.33), which fell within the pre-specified equivalence boundaries (0.75-1/0.75). The median DOR was 5.7 months (95% CI 4.5-6.2) for MIL60 and 5.6 months (95% CI 4.3-6.4) for bevacizumab. No significant difference was noted in median PFS (7.2 vs. 8.1 months; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30, p=0.9606) and OS (19.3 vs. 16.3 months; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64-1.02, p=0.0755). Safety and tolerability profiles were similar between the two groups. No patient detected positive for Anti-drug antibody (ADA).InterpretationThe efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MIL60 were similar with bevacizumab, providing an alternative treatment option for advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC.FundingThis study was sponsored by Betta Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Project description:BackgroundMB02 (bevacizumab biosimilar) showed similar structural, functional, and pharmacokinetic properties to reference bevacizumab (Avastin®; EU-bevacizumab).ObjectivesTo confirm clinical similarity between MB02 and EU-bevacizumab, a comparability study was undertaken in the first-line treatment of stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsThis multinational, double-blind, randomized, phase III study (STELLA) compared MB02 or EU-bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) administered with chemotherapy (paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC6) on Day 1 of every 3-week cycle for 6 cycles (Week 18), followed by MB02/EU-bevacizumab in blinded monotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, withdrawal of consent or end of study (Week 52). The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) evaluated by an independent radiological review committee (IRC) at Week 18 (intent-to-treat population). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and immunogenicity.ResultsA total of 627 subjects were randomized 1:1 to MB02 (n = 315) or EU-bevacizumab (n = 312). ORR, assessed by the IRC at Week 18, was comparable in MB02 (40.3%) and EU-bevacizumab (44.6%) groups. ORR risk ratio of 0.910 (90% CI 0.780 to 1.060; 95% CI 0.758 to 1.092) and ORR risk difference of -4.02 (90% CI -10.51 to 2.47; 95% CI -11.76 to 3.71) were within the similarity predefined margins. There were no significant differences between MB02 and EU-bevacizumab groups in median PFS (36.0 vs 37.3 weeks, respectively; HR 1.187; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.44) and median OS (not achieved; HR 1.108; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.49) at the end of study. The safety profile of MB02 and EU-bevacizumab regarding nature, frequency and severity of the adverse events (AE) was comparable. The most frequent grade ≥3 investigational-product-related AEs were hypertension and anemia, with a difference between treatment groups of <5%. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and neutralizing ADA (NAb) incidence were similar in both treatment groups.ConclusionMB02 demonstrated similar efficacy to EU-bevacizumab, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, in subjects with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, with comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles.Clinical trial registrationEudraCT No. 2017-001769-26; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03296163.

Project description:BackgroundBevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles. On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial.MethodsIn our double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial (BeTa), we enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC who presented to 177 study sites in 12 countries after failure of first-line treatment. Patients were randomly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (bevacizumab group) or erlotinib plus placebo (control group) according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by use of an interactive voice response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all enrolled patients. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed safety by calculation of incidence of adverse events and tissue was collected for biomarker analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00130728.FindingsOverall survival did not differ between 317 controls and 319 patients in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18, p=0·7583). Median overall survival was 9·3 months (IQR 4·1-21·6) for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with 9·2 months (3·8-20·2) for controls. Progression-free survival seemed to be longer in the bevacizumab group (3·4 months [1·4-8·4]) than in the control group (1·7 months [1·3-4·1]; HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·52-0·75) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity of bevacizumab and erlotinib. However, these secondary endpoint differences could not be defined as significant because the study prespecified that the primary endpoint had to be significant before testing of secondary endpoints could be done, to control type I error rate. In the bevacizumab group, 130 (42%) of 313 patients with safety data had a serious adverse event, compared with 114 (36%) controls. There were 20 (6%) grade 5 adverse events, including two arterial thromboembolic events, in the bevacizumab group, and 14 (4%) in the control group.InterpretationAddition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC.FundingGenentech.

Project description:BackgroundPF-06439535 is a bevacizumab biosimilar. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PF-06439535 with that of reference bevacizumab (Avastin®) sourced from the EU (bevacizumab-EU), each with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsIn this double-blind, parallel-group study, we recruited patients from 159 centers in 27 countries. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive PF-06439535 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin or bevacizumab-EU plus paclitaxel and carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for 4-6 cycles, followed by blinded monotherapy with PF-06439535 or bevacizumab-EU until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or the end of the study. Randomization was stratified by region, sex, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with RECIST 1.1, based on responses achieved by week 19 and confirmed by week 25.ResultsBetween 21 May 2015 and 14 November 2016, 719 patients were randomized to the PF-06439535 group (n = 358) or the bevacizumab-EU group (n = 361). As of data cutoff for analysis of the primary endpoint (8 May 2017), 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.01-50.57) of patients in the PF-06439535 group and 44.6% (95% CI 39.40-49.89) of patients in the bevacizumab-EU group achieved an objective response by week 19 that was confirmed by week 25. The unstratified ORR risk ratio was 1.015 (95% CI 0.863-1.193; 90% CI 0.886-1.163), and the unstratified ORR risk difference was 0.653% (95% CI - 6.608 to 7.908); all three CIs fell within pre-specified equivalence margins. Using final data after study completion (22 December 2017), no notable differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed between the groups. The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, neutropenia, and anemia. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, pharmacokinetics, or immunogenicity across treatment groups.ConclusionAmong patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, PF-06439535 demonstrated similarity to bevacizumab-EU in terms of efficacy. Safety profiles for the two treatments were comparable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364999.FundingPfizer.

Project description:PurposeThis phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.Patients and methodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks).ResultsA total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was -1.6 (CI -9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%).ConclusionsMYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints.Trial registry informationEU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32.Plain language summaryPrevious studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O (n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab (n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was -1.6 (95% CI -9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months (p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

Project description:BackgroundAtezolizumab combined with bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy is a standard treatment for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). We aimed to determine the most effective platinum-based combination, such that future studies with atezolizumab can be conducted to further improve patient outcomes.MethodsThis phase 2 study enrolled treatment-naïve patients with advanced or recurrent nsNSCLC who were randomly assigned to either cisplatin (75 mg/m2) + pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) + bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) (CisPemBev) followed by maintenance PemBev (N=132) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL/min) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) + bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) (CarPacBev) followed by maintenance Bev (N=67). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS, by central review). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated for safety. This study was designed with the point estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS calculated based on an expected HR <0.830 with a probability ≥80%.ResultsThe HR for PFS (CisPemBev/CarPacBev) was 0.825 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.600-1.134, median PFS, 7.6 vs. 7.0 months]. Because the observed point estimate of the HR for PFS was <0.830, the primary endpoint was met, and CisPem doublet therapy was deemed to be more effective than CarPac in terms of PFS. Median OS was 23.4 months for CisPemBev and 21.6 months for CarPacBev (HR 0.845; 95% CI, 0.583-1.242). The ORR was 57% for CisPemBev and 55% for CarPacBev. Both CisPemBev and CarPacBev were well tolerated; grade ≥3 AEs were reported in 67% and 82% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsCisPem combined with Bev was more effective in improving PFS compared with CarPacBev in patients with advanced nsNSCLC. CisPemBev was also well tolerated by this patient population. A study to evaluate the efficacy of atezolizumab plus CisPemBev is warranted.Trial registrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (ID: UMIN000013354).

Dataset Information

Equivalent efficacy study of QL1101 and bevacizumab on untreated advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Publications

Equivalent efficacy study of QL1101 and bevacizumab on untreated advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets