Cargando…
A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10155443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10881-8 |
_version_ | 1785036329547988992 |
---|---|
author | Gravis, Gwenaelle Marino, Patricia Olive, Daniel Penault-LLorca, Frederique Delord, Jean-Pierre Simon, Clotilde Lamrani-Ghaouti, Assia Sabatier, Renaud Ciccolini, Joseph Boher, Jean-Marie |
author_facet | Gravis, Gwenaelle Marino, Patricia Olive, Daniel Penault-LLorca, Frederique Delord, Jean-Pierre Simon, Clotilde Lamrani-Ghaouti, Assia Sabatier, Renaud Ciccolini, Joseph Boher, Jean-Marie |
author_sort | Gravis, Gwenaelle |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. METHOD/DESIGN: This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. DISCUSSION: Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient’s QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05078047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10881-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10155443 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101554432023-05-04 A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study Gravis, Gwenaelle Marino, Patricia Olive, Daniel Penault-LLorca, Frederique Delord, Jean-Pierre Simon, Clotilde Lamrani-Ghaouti, Assia Sabatier, Renaud Ciccolini, Joseph Boher, Jean-Marie BMC Cancer Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study. METHOD/DESIGN: This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3. DISCUSSION: Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient’s QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05078047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10881-8. BioMed Central 2023-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10155443/ /pubmed/37131154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10881-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Gravis, Gwenaelle Marino, Patricia Olive, Daniel Penault-LLorca, Frederique Delord, Jean-Pierre Simon, Clotilde Lamrani-Ghaouti, Assia Sabatier, Renaud Ciccolini, Joseph Boher, Jean-Marie A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title | A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title_full | A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title_fullStr | A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title_full_unstemmed | A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title_short | A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study |
title_sort | non-inferiority randomized phase iii trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the moio protocol study |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10155443/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10881-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gravisgwenaelle anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT marinopatricia anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT olivedaniel anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT penaultllorcafrederique anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT delordjeanpierre anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT simonclotilde anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT lamranighaoutiassia anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT sabatierrenaud anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT ciccolinijoseph anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT boherjeanmarie anoninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT gravisgwenaelle noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT marinopatricia noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT olivedaniel noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT penaultllorcafrederique noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT delordjeanpierre noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT simonclotilde noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT lamranighaoutiassia noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT sabatierrenaud noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT ciccolinijoseph noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy AT boherjeanmarie noninferiorityrandomizedphaseiiitrialofstandardimmunotherapybycheckpointinhibitorsvsreduceddoseintensityinrespondingpatientswithmetastaticcancerthemoioprotocolstudy |