Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of MB02 (Bevacizumab Biosimilar) versus Reference Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (STELLA)
    Trukhin D, Poddubskaya E, Andric Z, Makharadze T, Bellala RS, Charoentum C, et al.
    BioDrugs, 2021 Jul;35(4):429-444.
    PMID: 33914256 DOI: 10.1007/s40259-021-00483-w
    BACKGROUND: MB02 (bevacizumab biosimilar) showed similar structural, functional, and pharmacokinetic properties to reference bevacizumab (Avastin®; EU-bevacizumab).

    OBJECTIVES: To 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 METHODS: This 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.

    RESULTS: A 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.

    CONCLUSION: MB02 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 REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2017-001769-26; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03296163.

  2. Adaptation of international guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer: an asian consensus
    Cheng AL, Li J, Vaid AK, Ma BB, Teh C, Ahn JB, et al.
    Clin Colorectal Cancer, 2014 Sep;13(3):145-55.
    PMID: 25209093 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2014.06.004
    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers worldwide, but marked epidemiological differences exist between Asian and non-Asian populations. Hence, a consensus meeting was held in Hong Kong in December 2012 to develop Asia-specific guidelines for the management of metastatic CRC (mCRC). A multidisciplinary expert panel, consisting of 23 participants from 10 Asian and 2 European countries, discussed current guidelines for colon or rectal cancer and developed recommendations for adapting these guidelines to Asian clinical practice. Participants agreed that mCRC management in Asia largely follows international guidelines, but they proposed a number of recommendations based on regional 'real-world' experience. In general, participants agreed that 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion regimens in doublets can be substituted with UFT (capecitabine, tegafur-uracil) and S1 (tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine and oxonic acid), and that the monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are recommended for KRAS wild type tumors. For KRAS mutant tumors, bevacizumab is the preferred biological therapy. FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin) is preferred for initial therapy in Asian patients. The management of mCRC is evolving, and it must be emphasized that the recommendations presented here reflect current treatment practices and thus might change as more data become available.
  3. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with biliary tract cancer
    Chen LT, Vogel A, Hsu C, Chen MH, Fang W, Pangarsa EA, et al.
    ESMO Open, 2024 Aug;9(8):103647.
    PMID: 39232586 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103647
    The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC), published in late 2022 were adapted in December 2023, according to established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with BTC. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with BTC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and the Taiwan Oncology Society (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different regions of Asia. Drug access and reimbursement in the different regions of Asia are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with BTC across the different countries and regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices and molecular profiling, as well as age and stage at presentation. Attention is drawn to the disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different countries.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links