King's College London

Research portal

AT-43 * MULTI-CENTRE, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND PHASE II STUDY COMPARING CEDIRANIB (AZD2171) PLUS GEFITINIB (IRESSA, ZD1839) WITH CEDIRANIB PLUS PLACEBO IN SUBJECTS WITH RECURRENT/PROGRESSIVE GLIOBLASTOMA

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

P. Mulholland, D. Krell, I. Khan, C. Mcbain, C. Patel, K. Wanek, K. Hopkins, S. Jeffries, R. Jager, P. Smith, Q. Liu, R. Stupp, I. Tomlinson

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)v18-v18
JournalNEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume16
Issue numbersuppl 5
DOIs
Published1 Nov 2014

King's Authors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor cediranib failed to improve outcome in recurrent glioblastoma in a randomized phase III trial (Batchelor et al.). One resistance mechanism for cediranib is through up-regulation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This study was designed to test if the efficacy of cediranib is improved with the addition of gefitinib (an EGFR inhibitor). METHODS: We planned to 1:1 randomize 112 subjects with recurrent/progressive glioblastoma to cediranib + gefitinib (C + G) or cediranib + placebo (C + P) (NCT01310855), with PFS as the primary endpoint. Secondary end-points: OS, radiographic response rate, PFS rate at 6 months, 12 months survival rate, steroid use, time to deterioration of neurological status, safety and tolerability. Recruitment was discontinued early following AstraZeneca's suspension of the cediranib programme. RESULTS: 38 subjects were randomized, the interim results on 34 subjects (17 in each arm) are currently available. 24 male and 10 female. Mean age 54 (range 30-71). KPS ≤80 (35%), >80 (65%). The base-line characteristics for subjects in the 2 arms of the study were well balanced. Median PFS (95% CI) C + G 4.0 mo (2.7, *n/c), C + P 4.1 mo (2.0, 7.3); 6 month PFS C + G 40%, C + P 26%; 12 month PFS n/c; C + G vs C + P HR = 0.49, 95% CI (0.22, 1.11, p = 0.15). OS (mo): Median C + G 7.7 (95% CI 3.8, n/c), C + P 5.5 (95% CI 2.5, 7.3); 12 month n/c; C + G vs C + P HR = 0.359, 95% CI (0.12, 1.1; p = 0.076). No safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: These interim results demonstrate no difference in PFS, however there was a trend (p = 0.08) for improved OS with the combination. The final results of the study for all 38 subjects will be available. *n/c not calculable due to limited data at time of analysis

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454