TY - JOUR
T1 - Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy vs physicians’ choice standard-of-care treatment in patients with recurrent glioblastoma
T2 - a post-approval registry study (EF-19)
AU - Zhu, Jay Jiguang
AU - Goldlust, Samuel A.
AU - Kleinberg, Lawrence R.
AU - Honnorat, Jérôme
AU - Oberheim Bush, Nancy Ann
AU - Ram, Zvi
N1 - Funding Information:
The study was funded by Novocure Inc. ®
Funding Information:
Writing and editorial support under the direction of the authors was provided by Huda Abdullah, PhD, Global Publications, Novocure Inc., USA, Emma Butterworth, PhD, Excerpta Medica Inc., and Melissa Purves, PhD, CMPP, Prime, Knutsford, UK. Writing and editorial support provided by Excerpta Medica Inc. and Prime was funded by Novocure Inc. All costs related to publication were funded by Novocure Inc. Responsibility for all opinions, conclusions, and data interpretation lies with the authors. TM
Funding Information:
Jay-Jiguang Zhu has been supported by the following for-profit companies for clinical trials and contracted research with payments made to his institution: Denovo Biopharma, Novocure, Inc., Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc., Boston Biomedical of Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Purpose: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a noninvasive, anti-mitotic treatment modality, is approved for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) and newly diagnosed GBM based on phase III, EF-11 (NCT00379470) and EF-14 (NCT00916409) studies, respectively. The EF-19 study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of TTFields monotherapy (200 kHz) vs physicians’ choice standard of care (PC-SOC; EF-11 historical control group) in rGBM. Methods: A prospective, post-marketing registry study of adults with supratentorial rGBM treated with TTFields therapy was conducted. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS; intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and secondary endpoint was OS per-protocol (PP). Subgroup and toxicity analyses were conducted. Results: Median OS (ITT population) was comparable with TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (7.4 vs 6.4 months, log-rank test P = 0.053; Cox test hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.66 [0.47–0.92], P = 0.016). The upper-bound HR (95% CI) was lower than pre-defined noninferiority (1.375 threshold). In the PP population, median OS was significantly longer for TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (8.1 vs 6.4 months; log-rank test P = 0.017; Cox test HR [95% CI], 0.60 [0.42–0.85], P = 0.004). TTFields therapy showed increased benefit with extended use (≥ 18 h/day [averaged over 28 days]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events (AEs) by body system were lower vs PC-SOC: mainly mild-to-moderate skin AEs. Conclusion: In the real-world setting, TTFields monotherapy showed comparable (ITT population) and superior (PP population) OS vs PC-SOC in rGBM. In line with previous results, TTFields therapy showed a favorable safety profile vs chemotherapy, without new safety signals/systemic effects. Trial registration: NCT01756729, registered December 20, 2012. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].
AB - Purpose: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, a noninvasive, anti-mitotic treatment modality, is approved for recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) and newly diagnosed GBM based on phase III, EF-11 (NCT00379470) and EF-14 (NCT00916409) studies, respectively. The EF-19 study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of TTFields monotherapy (200 kHz) vs physicians’ choice standard of care (PC-SOC; EF-11 historical control group) in rGBM. Methods: A prospective, post-marketing registry study of adults with supratentorial rGBM treated with TTFields therapy was conducted. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS; intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and secondary endpoint was OS per-protocol (PP). Subgroup and toxicity analyses were conducted. Results: Median OS (ITT population) was comparable with TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (7.4 vs 6.4 months, log-rank test P = 0.053; Cox test hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.66 [0.47–0.92], P = 0.016). The upper-bound HR (95% CI) was lower than pre-defined noninferiority (1.375 threshold). In the PP population, median OS was significantly longer for TTFields monotherapy vs PC-SOC (8.1 vs 6.4 months; log-rank test P = 0.017; Cox test HR [95% CI], 0.60 [0.42–0.85], P = 0.004). TTFields therapy showed increased benefit with extended use (≥ 18 h/day [averaged over 28 days]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events (AEs) by body system were lower vs PC-SOC: mainly mild-to-moderate skin AEs. Conclusion: In the real-world setting, TTFields monotherapy showed comparable (ITT population) and superior (PP population) OS vs PC-SOC in rGBM. In line with previous results, TTFields therapy showed a favorable safety profile vs chemotherapy, without new safety signals/systemic effects. Trial registration: NCT01756729, registered December 20, 2012. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85140060945&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85140060945&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s12672-022-00555-5
DO - 10.1007/s12672-022-00555-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 36239858
AN - SCOPUS:85140060945
SN - 1868-8497
VL - 13
JO - Discover Oncology
JF - Discover Oncology
IS - 1
M1 - 105
ER -