Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of MIL60 compared with bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We 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.

Methods

Patients 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).

Findings

Between 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).

Interpretation

The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MIL60 were similar with bevacizumab, providing an alternative treatment option for advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC.

Funding

This study was sponsored by Betta Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Wan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8606331 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of MIL60 compared with bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind study.

Wan Rui R Dong Xiaorong X Chen Qun Q Yu Yan Y Yang Shujun S Zhang Xiaochun X Zhang Guojun G Pan Yueyin Y Sun Sanyuan S Zhou Chengzhi C Hong Wei W Zhao Hui H Yang Lei L Huang Linian L Wu Rong R Zang Aimin A Ma Rui R Wu Lin L Lv Dongqing D Fu Xiuhua X Han Jianguo J Li Wenxin W Duan Jianchun J Wang Kai K Jiang Ou O Chen Yinglan Y Guo Zhongliang Z Gao Hongjun H Wen Juyi J Wang Shubin S Zhao Enfeng E Li Gaofeng G Yue Lu L Liang Li L Zeng Aiping A Wang Xiaoshan X Zhu Yuxi Y Pan Hongming H Dai Zhaoxia Z Feng Weineng W Zhao Guofang G Lin Chuan C Li Chong C Li Na N Bao Yangyi Y Li Yinyin Y Su Yanjun Y Zhao Min M Fang Haohui H Zhu Yulong Y Zhang Yu Y Ding Lieming L Wang Yang Y Yuan Xiaobin X Wang Jie J

EClinicalMedicine 20211119

<h4>Background</h4>We 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.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients 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 mainte ...[more]

PMID: 34841235

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated the preclinical pharmacological and toxicological consistency, and clinical pharmacokinetic equivalence of bevacizumab biosimilar LY01008 with reference bevacizumab (Avastin). This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LY01008 with Avastin in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsStage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients with evaluable lesions, good physical status, and adequate organ functions from 67 centers across China were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive LY01008 or Avastin 15 mg/kg intravenously in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin (combined treatment) for 4-6 cycles, followed by maintenance monotherapy with LY01008 until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 confirmed by independent radiological review committees (IRRC). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03533127).ResultsBetween December 15th , 2017, and May 15th , 2019, a total of 649 patients were randomized to the LY01008 (n = 324) or Avastin (n = 325) group. As of September 25th , 2019 for primary endpoint analysis, 589 patients received ORR evaluation, with a median number of combined treatment cycles of 5 (range 1-6) and median duration of treatment of 3.0 (range 0.0-5.1) months. ORR of response-evaluable patients in the LY01008 and Avastin groups were 48.5% and 53.0%, respectively. The stratified ORR ratio was 0.91 (90% CI 0.80-1.04, within the prespecified equivalence margin of 0.75-1.33). Up to May 15th , 2020, with a median follow-up of 13.6 (range 0.8-28.4) months, no notable differences in DCR, median DoR, median PFS, median OS, and 1-year OS rate were observed between the LY01008 and Avastin groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity across treatment groups.ConclusionsLY01008 demonstrated similarity to Avastin in terms of efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC. LY01008 combined with paclitaxel/carboplatin is expected to become a new treatment option for unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC patients in the first-line setting.

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).

Project description:BackgroundBevacizumab is an antiangiogenic recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor growth. FKB238, a bevacizumab biosimilar, has analytical pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to those of bevacizumab.ObjectiveThis phase III trial (NCT02810457) compared the efficacy and safety of FKB238 with that of bevacizumab in patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (non-sq-NSCLC).MethodsThis global, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, comparative clinical trial enrolled and randomized patients with advanced/recurrent non-sq-NSCLC to receive intravenous infusions of either FKB238 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. All patients received intravenous infusions of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0) immediately prior to investigational products for 4-6 cycles. FKB238 and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until objective progressive disease by RECIST version 1.1 or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), including complete and partial response and based on blinded independent central review assessment. Other efficacy determinations included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Adverse events and severity were reported.ResultsThe ORR for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 731) was 51.6% in the FKB238 arm (N = 364) and 53.7% in the bevacizumab arm (N = 367). The FKB238:bevacizumab ORR ratio (ITT population) was 0.96 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.08), and the difference in ORR (per-protocol set) between FKB238 and bevacizumab was - 0.02 (95% CI - 0.09 to 0.06). Both CIs fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. Estimated median PFS was 7.72 and 7.62 months in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.82-1.16). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 94.2% and 95.1% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported for 53.6% and 55.5% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Serious TEAEs were reported for 25.1% and 26.0% of patients treated with FKB238 and bevacizumab, respectively.ConclusionsEfficacy equivalence was demonstrated between the two drugs, and safety profiles were similar. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy and safety between FKB238 or bevacizumab in patients with non-sq-NSCLC.Trial registration numberNCT02810457.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of MIL60 compared with bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind study.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Efficacy and safety of MIL60 compared with bevacizumab in advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets