Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Fizazi, K
• De Bono, J.S
• Flechon, A
• Heidenreich, A
• Voog, E
• Davis, N.B
• Qi, Ming
• Bandekar, R
• Vermeulen, J.T
• Cornfeld, M
• Hudes, G.R

Titel

Randomised phase II study of siltuximab (CNTO 328), an anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody, in combination with mitoxantrone/prednisone versus mitoxantrone/prednisone alone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Ist Teil von

• European journal of cancer (1990), 2012-01, Vol.48 (1), p.85-93

Ort / Verlag

Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2012

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Abstract Purpose This open-label phase II trial assessed mitoxantrone/prednisone (M/P) with and without siltuximab (CNTO 328), an anti-interleukin-6 chimeric monoclonal antibody, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Methods Part 1 assessed the safety of biweekly siltuximab 6 mg/kg plus M 12 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and P. Part 2 assessed efficacy and safety of siltuximab plus M/P versus M/P alone. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Progression was defined as progressive disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), or ⩾3 new skeletal lesions with clinical deterioration or without deterioration confirmed by repeated bone scan. Rising prostate-specific antigen was not considered progression. Results Siltuximab plus M/P was well tolerated in Part 1 ( n = 9). In Part 2, 48 and 49 patients received siltuximab plus M/P or M/P alone, respectively. Enrolment was prematurely terminated by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee since an apparent imbalance in patient baseline characteristics (favoring the M/P only arm) made it unlikely that the study could achieve its primary efficacy end-point. Median PFS was 97 days with siltuximab combination and 228 days with M/P alone (hazard ratio, 1.72; P = 0.043). Use of a novel non-validated PFS definition may have contributed to this result. Abnormal laboratory assessments were more frequent with the combination. Infection and febrile neutropenia rates were similar between groups. Greater C-reactive protein suppression was achieved during siltuximab combination treatment compared with M/P alone ( P = 0.0003). Conclusion While siltuximab plus M/P appeared well tolerated, improvement in outcomes was not demonstrated.