Search

Background: Recurrent cervical cancer is a life-threatening disease, with limited treatment options available when disease progression occurs after first-line combination therapy., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label trial of tisotumab vedotin as second- or third-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive tisotumab vedotin monotherapy (2.0 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks) or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed). The primary end point was overall survival., Results: A total of 502 patients underwent randomization (253 were assigned to the tisotumab vedotin group and 249 to the chemotherapy group); the groups were similar with respect to demographic and disease characteristics. The median overall survival was significantly longer in the tisotumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (11.5 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 9.8 to 14.9] vs. 9.5 months [95% CI, 7.9 to 10.7]), results that represented a 30% lower risk of death with tisotumab vedotin than with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; two-sided P = 0.004). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 4.4) with tisotumab vedotin and 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 3.1) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; two-sided P<0.001). The confirmed objective response rate was 17.8% in the tisotumab vedotin group and 5.2% in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.1 to 7.6; two-sided P<0.001). A total of 98.4% of patients in the tisotumab vedotin group and 99.2% in the chemotherapy group had at least one adverse event that occurred during the treatment period (defined as the period from day 1 of dose 1 until 30 days after the last dose); grade 3 or greater events occurred in 52.0% and 62.3%, respectively. A total of 14.8% of patients stopped tisotumab vedotin treatment because of toxic effects., Conclusions: In patients with recurrent cervical cancer, second- or third-line treatment with tisotumab vedotin resulted in significantly greater efficacy than chemotherapy. (Funded by Genmab and Seagen [acquired by Pfizer]; innovaTV 301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04697628.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: The AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov14/PENELOPE prospectively randomized phase III trial evaluated the addition of pertuzumab to chemotherapy in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma with low tumor human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) mRNA expression. We report the results of the primary efficacy analysis., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had ovarian carcinoma that progressed during or within 6 months of completing four or more platinum cycles, centrally tested low tumor HER3 mRNA expression (concentration ratio ≤ 2.81 by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction on cobas z480 [Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA]), and no more than two prior lines of chemotherapy. After investigators' selection of the chemotherapy backbone (single-agent topotecan, weekly paclitaxel, or gemcitabine), patients were randomly assigned to also receive either placebo or pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose followed by 420 mg every 3 weeks). Stratification factors were selected chemotherapy, prior antiangiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval. The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Additional end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and translational research., Results: Overall, 156 patients were randomly assigned. Adding pertuzumab to chemotherapy did not significantly improve independent review committee-assessed PFS for the primary analysis (stratified hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.11; P = .14; median PFS, 4.3 months for pertuzumab plus chemotherapy v 2.6 months for placebo plus chemotherapy). Sensitivity analyses and secondary efficacy end point results were consistent with the primary analysis. The effect on PFS favoring pertuzumab was more pronounced in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts. No new safety signals were seen., Conclusion: Although the primary objective was not met, subgroup analyses showed trends in PFS favoring pertuzumab in the gemcitabine and paclitaxel cohorts, meriting further exploration of pertuzumab in ovarian cancer., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)