24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase III, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 ( IDH1) mutation.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          266

          Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Oncology
          JCO
          American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
          0732-183X
          1527-7755
          January 20 2021
          January 20 2021
          : 39
          : 3_suppl
          : 266
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA;
          [2 ]Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain;
          [3 ]MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX;
          [4 ]University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA;
          [5 ]University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI;
          [6 ]Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain;
          [7 ]Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA;
          [8 ]Gastrointestinal Oncology Program, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL;
          [9 ]Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ;
          [10 ]UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom;
          [11 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA;
          [12 ]Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD;
          [13 ]Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea;
          [14 ]Utah Cancer Specialists, Murray, UT;
          [15 ]Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA;
          [16 ]University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom;
          [17 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center & Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, NY;
          Article
          10.1200/JCO.2021.39.3_suppl.266
          fac65925-fad4-4347-b8af-16de0fcadfd9
          © 2021
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article