SWOG S1602: A phase III randomized trial to evaluate BCG strain differences and priming with intradermal BCG before intravesical therapy for BCG-naïve high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NCT #03091660).
Abstract
LBA629 Background: Whether BCG strain influences clinical efficacy is unclear. BCG shortages and a reliance on a single strain may impact disease outcomes. Evidence also suggests that priming with intradermal (ID) BCG vaccination prior to intravesical (IVe) BCG enhances anti-tumor immunity and cancer clearance. Co-primary objectives address these issues. Methods: The trial design calls for 924 eligible patients with BCG naïve non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) (HG Ta/T1 +/- CIS or CIS alone) with negative purified protein derivative (PPD) to be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio, to IVe TICE (Arm 1), IVe Tokyo-172 (Arm 2), or ID + IVe Tokyo-172 (Arm 3) BCG, stratifying on age group and clinical stage. IVe BCG included 6 weekly instillations (induction) and three weekly instillations (maintenance) at 3 and 6 months (mo), then every 6 mo for 3 years. Objective 1 tests whether Tokyo-172 BCG is non-inferior (NI) to TICE BCG, specifying a NI hazard ratio=1.34 (84% power). Objective 2 tests whether priming with ID prior to IVe Tokyo-172 is superior to IVe Tokyo-172 (HR=0.71, 83% power). The primary endpoint is high-grade recurrence-free survival (HG-RFS) censored at last cystoscopy, using a one-sided α=0.021 for each test. A Cox model adjusting for the stratification factors is used. Secondary endpoints include adverse events, 6-mo biopsy-proven complete response (CR) in patients with CIS +/- Ta, T1, duration of CR, PPD conversion and HG-RFS, progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life. Max follow-up is 5 years. Results: 1000 (984 eligible) patients were enrolled from 2/17-12/20. Median (IQR) follow up is 4.6 (3.6, 5.0) yrs. Median age (range) is 70 yrs (26, 99), 17% are female, 9% are non-white, and 34% had CIS at entry. HG-RFS, CR, duration of CR at 4 yrs, and PFS were similar among arms (Table). PPD conversion occurred in 29% and was not correlated with HG-RFS. Gr 1-2 AE rate was similar (67%, 71%, and 67%) and Gr 3-4 (no Gr 5s) rate was 6%, 11%, and 14% for Arms 1,2, and 3, respectively. Conclusions: Tokyo-172 is non-inferior to TICE BCG in terms of HG RFS and CIS CR and is similar for PFS. Gr 3-4 AE rate is higher with Tokyo-172. Priming with Tokyo-172 BCG does not improve HG RFS. PPD conversion is not prognostic. Clinical trial information: NCT #03091660 . CIS Component N (eligible) 5-yr HG RFS HG RFSHR (95.8% CI) @ 5-yrPFS PFS HR(95% CI) @ CR %(95% CI) 4 yr CR duration Tice Ive 333 (330) 58% 79% 62%; 71/114(53%, 71%) 80% Tokyo Ive 332 (327) 64% *0.82(0.63, 1.08) 79% *0.99(0.70, 1.39) 60%; 66/110(50%, 69%) 83% Tokyo ID + Ive 335 (327) 63% **1.00(0.76, 1.33) 77% **1.07(0.76, 1.51) 63%; 69/109(54%, 72%) 80% 3 mo. PPD + conversionY vs. N 782 evaluable225 (29%)557 (71%) 69%67% ^HR=0.91(0.68, 1.22) * Tokyo-172 vs. Tice, ** Tokyo Priming vs. Tokyo no priming. ^conversion to PPD + vs. – @ adjusted for 2 strat factors (and arms for PPD model). PFS event = MIBC, metastasis, or death.
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Robert S. Svatek
UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
Catherine Tangen
SWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
Joshua J. Meeks
Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
Scott Michael Gilbert
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL
Yair Lotan
Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
Mark Tyson
Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
Paul Crispen
University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL
Scott Edward Delacroix
Gulf South NCORP, Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Metairie, LA
Jessie Gills
Gulf South NCORP, Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Metairie, LA
Siamak Daneshmand
Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
Michael Woods
From the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (A.B.A., N.S., S.N., L.L., L.C.), the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore (J.H.-C.), and the Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville (H.S., E.S.) — all in Maryland; the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (K.V.B., M.O., C.M., G.P.B.); AdventHealth Cancer Institute and the University of Central Florida, Orlando (G.S.); Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston (S.B., B.M.); UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill (W.Y.K.), and Duke University Medical Center and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham (J.H., S.H.) — both in North Carolina; the University of Kansas Cancer Center, Westwood (R.P.); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (M.Y.T., M.J.M., J.E.R.), and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo (G.C.) — both in...
Viraj A. Master
J. Ryan Mark
Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA
Ajjai Shivaram Alva
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Rick Bangs
Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network Bethesda Maryland USA
Darrell Nakagawa
SWOG GU Bladder Patient Advocate, Schaumburg, IL
Joseph M. Unger
Public Health Sciences Division Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center Seattle Washington USA
Melissa Plets
SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA
Ian Murchie Thompson
UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
Seth P. Lerner
Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston