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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gravis, Gwenaelle, Marino, Patricia, Olive, Daniel, Penault-LLorca, Frederique, Delord, Jean-Pierre, Simon, Clotilde, Lamrani-Ghaouti, Assia, Sabatier, Renaud, Ciccolini, Joseph, Boher, Jean-Marie
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