Clinical Trial Results:
A prospective, Phase 3, multi-center, single-arm, imaging study investigating the safety and diagnostic performance of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET ligand in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer
Summary
|
|
EudraCT number |
2019-003381-40 |
Trial protocol |
DE FI NL |
Global end of trial date |
21 Jun 2021
|
Results information
|
|
Results version number |
v1(current) |
This version publication date |
31 Dec 2023
|
First version publication date |
31 Dec 2023
|
Other versions |
Trial Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
|
|||
Trial identification
|
|||
Sponsor protocol code |
BED-PSMA-301
|
||
Additional study identifiers
|
|||
ISRCTN number |
- | ||
US NCT number |
- | ||
WHO universal trial number (UTN) |
- | ||
Other trial identifiers |
IND Number: 141,561 | ||
Sponsors
|
|||
Sponsor organisation name |
Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ireland Ltd
|
||
Sponsor organisation address |
6th Floor, Grand Canal Square, Dublin, Ireland, Dublin 2
|
||
Public contact |
PSMA Clinical Manager, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Inc, +1 9199998670, contact@blueearthdx.com
|
||
Scientific contact |
PSMA Clinical Manager, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Inc, +1 9199998670, contact@blueearthdx.com
|
||
Paediatric regulatory details
|
|||
Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) |
No
|
||
Does article 45 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Does article 46 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Results analysis stage
|
|||
Analysis stage |
Final
|
||
Date of interim/final analysis |
18 Feb 2022
|
||
Is this the analysis of the primary completion data? |
Yes
|
||
Primary completion date |
21 Jun 2021
|
||
Global end of trial reached? |
Yes
|
||
Global end of trial date |
21 Jun 2021
|
||
Was the trial ended prematurely? |
No
|
||
General information about the trial
|
|||
Main objective of the trial |
To assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central blinded image evaluation [BIE]) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). At least one positive pelvic LN on PET (N1) and one positive lymph node (LN) as determined by histopathology (pN1) on the same side of the pelvis (left or right) will be deemed a True Positive (TP) at the patient level.
|
||
Protection of trial subjects |
This study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines on Good Clinical Practice (GCP). In addition, all relevant regulations and guidance were followed, including United States (US), European Union (EU) and national legislation. As this study was conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, relevant guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) was followed, including, but not limited to, the FDA Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Institutional Review Boards - Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (March 2020; updated 30 Aug 21) and the EMA Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Version 4, 04 Feb 21). Prior to study initiation in each country, the study was authorized by the relevant Regulatory Agency/Competent Authority. All applicable privacy regulations (e.g. US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA] 1996; EU General Data Protection Regulation 2018; United Kingdom [UK] Data Protection Act 2018) were adhered to.
|
||
Background therapy |
None | ||
Evidence for comparator |
None | ||
Actual start date of recruitment |
02 Mar 2020
|
||
Long term follow-up planned |
No
|
||
Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) involvement? |
No
|
||
Population of trial subjects
|
|||
Number of subjects enrolled per country |
|||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Finland: 18
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Germany: 86
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
United States: 238
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Netherlands: 14
|
||
Worldwide total number of subjects |
356
|
||
EEA total number of subjects |
118
|
||
Number of subjects enrolled per age group |
|||
In utero |
0
|
||
Preterm newborn - gestational age < 37 wk |
0
|
||
Newborns (0-27 days) |
0
|
||
Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months) |
0
|
||
Children (2-11 years) |
0
|
||
Adolescents (12-17 years) |
0
|
||
Adults (18-64 years) |
163
|
||
From 65 to 84 years |
193
|
||
85 years and over |
0
|
|
|||||||
Recruitment
|
|||||||
Recruitment details |
This study was from 02 Mar 20 (first patient, screening visit) and 18 Feb 22 (database lock), with the last patient, last visit on 21 Jun 21. It was conducted at 34 activated study sites (31 recruited) in 4 countries. Of the 372 patients screened, 356 patients met all the study eligibility criteria. 16 patients were screen failures so not included | ||||||
Pre-assignment
|
|||||||
Screening details |
Baseline safety evaluations performed at screening (Visit 1) comprised vital signs, focused physical examination and recording of any adverse events (AEs) from the time of informed consent. | ||||||
Period 1
|
|||||||
Period 1 title |
Single Arm (overall period)
|
||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
Yes | ||||||
Allocation method |
Not applicable
|
||||||
Blinding used |
Not blinded | ||||||
Blinding implementation details |
Not applicable
|
||||||
Arms
|
|||||||
Arm title
|
Single Arm | ||||||
Arm description |
All patients who received the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) injection | ||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
rhPSMA-7.3 (18F)
|
||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
rhPSMA-7.3 (18F)
|
||||||
Other name |
flotufolastat F18
|
||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Solution for injection
|
||||||
Routes of administration |
Intravenous bolus use
|
||||||
Dosage and administration details |
All patients were planned to receive a single dose of IMP, with an administered activity of 8 mCi (296 MBq) ± 20% of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F), delivered as an IV bolus injection followed by a 10 mL fast 0.9% sodium chloride flush. The mass dose administered was less than 100 µg/patient. rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) was supplied as a sterile, aqueous solution for IV administration either in a multi-dose vial sealed with a synthetic rubber closure and aluminum overseal or in a single unit dose syringe depending on the manufacturing location.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baseline characteristics reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Single Arm
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
The FAS comprised 356 patients who were scheduled to receive the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) injection and met the inclusion/exclusion criteria | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
End points reporting groups
|
|||
Reporting group title |
Single Arm
|
||
Reporting group description |
All patients who received the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) injection | ||
Subject analysis set title |
EAP
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Full analysis | ||
Subject analysis set description |
Full analysis
|
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Specificity Reader 1 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Specificity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level specificity (TN/[TN+FP]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the EAP. The hypothesis was: H0: Specificity ≤Sp0 versus H1: Specificity >Sp0 (Sp0=performance goal of 82.5%, based on high specificity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Specificity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
452
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [1] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [2] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
92.9
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
88.8 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
95.9 | ||||||||||||
Notes [1] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [2] - H0: Specificity ≤ 82.5% |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Specificity Reader 2 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Specificity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level sensitivity (TP/[TP+FN]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the EAP. The hypothesis was: H0: Sensitivity ≤Se0 versus H1: Sensitivity >Se0 (Se0=performance goal of 22.5%, based on low sensitivity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Sensitivity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
452
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [3] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [4] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
93.8
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
89.8 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
96.6 | ||||||||||||
Notes [3] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [4] - H0: Sensitivity ≤ 82.5% |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Specificity Reader 3 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Specificity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level specificity (TN/[TN+FP]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the PPN. The hypothesis was: H0: Specificity ≤Sp0 versus H1: Specificity >Sp0 (Sp0=performance goal of 82.5%, based on high specificity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Specificity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
452
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [5] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.001 [6] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
96.7
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
93.7 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
98.7 | ||||||||||||
Notes [5] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [6] - H0: Specificity ≤ 82.5% |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Sensitivity Reader 1 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Sensitivity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level sensitivity (TP/[TP+FN]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the PPN. The hypothesis was: H0: Sensitivity ≤Se0 versus H1: Sensitivity >Se0 (Se0=performance goal of 22.5%, based on low sensitivity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Sensitivity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
140
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [7] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.09 [8] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
30
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
19.6 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
42.1 | ||||||||||||
Notes [7] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [8] - H0: Sensitivity ≤ 22.5% |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Sensitvity Reader 2 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Sensitivity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level sensitivity (TP/[TP+FN]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the PPN. The hypothesis was: H0: Sensitivity ≤Se0 versus H1: Sensitivity >Se0 (Se0=performance goal of 22.5%, based on low sensitivity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Sensitivity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
140
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [9] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.213 [10] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
27.1
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
17.2 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
39.1 | ||||||||||||
Notes [9] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [10] - H0: Sensitivity ≤ 22.5% |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Sensitivity Reader 3 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The primary objective of the study is to assess the sensitivity and specificity of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting N1 disease (as determined by the central BIE) on a patient level compared to the histopathology of pelvic lymphatic tissue removed during RP and PLND.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Patients were to receive treatment within 60 days post-IMP administration, with treatment decision based on rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET and conventional imaging.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Sensitivity | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
The co-primary endpoint of patient-level sensitivity (TP/[TP+FN]) of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET (determined by central BIE) to detect PLN metastases compared to surgical pathology, was performed using the PPN. The hypothesis was: H0: Sensitivity ≤Se0 versus H1: Sensitivity >Se0 (Se0=performance goal of 22.5%, based on low sensitivity of other PSMA ligands used for lymph node staging. Sensitivity % with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for 3 blinded readers and the majority evaluation.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Single Arm v EAP
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
140
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [11] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.518 [12] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Exact binomial | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Percentage | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
22.9
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
13.7 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
34.4 | ||||||||||||
Notes [11] - The analysis was performed using a 1-sided 0.025 exact binomial test. In addition to the rates, exact 2-sided 95% CIs were provided. If the predefined goal was met by the same 2 of 3 blinded independent readers (both tests reached statistical significance [P<0.05] for the same 2 readers), the study was considered to have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) in detecting N1 disease. [12] - H0: Sensitivity ≤ 22.5% |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse events information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timeframe for reporting adverse events |
All AEs were recorded throughout the study from informed consent at screening until the last study visit. AEs reported in EudraCT are treatment-emergent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse event reporting additional description |
AEs were coded using MedDRA and data listed by patient, including study site, patient identifier, age, race, AE (MedDRA SOC, PT and verbatim term), dates of onset and resolution, duration, CTCAE toxicity grade, seriousness, action taken, outcome and causality. Deaths, SAEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were also listed by patient
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment type |
Systematic | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary name |
MedDRA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary version |
23
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Full Safety Population (FSP)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
All patients who received the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) injection. The FSP was used for all safety summaries. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 0% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Substantial protocol amendments (globally) |
|||
Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes | |||
Date |
Amendment |
||
07 Jan 2020 |
Several updates based on feedback from the US FDA.
Update: studies evaluating 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET or 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA PET in the Study Rationale, including addition of point estimate ranges for the studies quoted.
Clarify: study rationale that the study was to be performed in patients eligible for curative intent, locoregional therapy.
Clarify: baseline conventional imaging was required if not performed in the 60 days prior to screening.
Clarify: assessment of objectives and endpoints was based on central BIE.
Add: exploratory objective added to “evaluate the number of PET-positive pelvic LNs by central BIE as compared to the number of pathologic positive LNs (by local histopathology analysis) in each region”, with corresponding endpoint.
Clarifiy: dose of IMP could be 8 mCi (296 MBq) ± 20% rhPSMA-7.3 (18F).
Add: to allow discussion of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET results and further procedures/treatment plan to be conducted by telephone at the clinician’s discretion.
Clarify: physical examination would be focused in nature.
Clarify: safety follow-up visit was to be conducted within 1 to 3 days post-IMP administration.
Add: interim look at the percentage of pN1 and pN0 patients after enrollment of 150 patients.
Amend: inclusion criterion 4 to remove primary treatment with EBRT.
Clarify: additions to standard of care surgical treatments for patients with M0 and M1 disease on local PET interpretation.
Clarify: added to confirmatory imaging when used as SoT.
Define: unrelated AE updated.
Update: sample size and number of evaluable patients required before enrollment will stop, plus the number of positive and negative cases required for enrollment to stop.
Update: analysis sets.
Clarify: rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) would be considered effective in detecting N1 disease if the co-primary endpoints were met by the same 2 of 3 readers.
Other minor typographical edits and clarifications. |
||
04 Jun 2020 |
Germany specific
Several updates to implement feedback from BfArM:
Add: text on the replacement of patients who dropout.
Exclusion criterion added for patients with known hypersensitivity to the active substance or any excipients of the IMP. |
||
01 Jul 2020 |
Patient safety and BfArM feedbackfeedback (COVID-19):
Add: latest NCCN Guidelines.
Combine: exploratory objectives/endpoints 2 & 3.
Extend: screening: 28-45 days (COVID-19).
Add: Visits 1 and 2 combined option, screening evaluation could occur on day of rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) administration (COVID-19) and clarify that the procedure was to combine IMP manufacture visits.
Extend: safety follow-up visit to within 1-5 days (COVID-19).
Extend: period from Visit 2 to the scheduled surgery and/or follow up procedures up to 60 (COVID-19).
Clarify: study population to be treatment naïve and receive standard of care and clarifications added to inclusion criteria risk definitions.
Add: exclusion criterion for patients with hypersensitivity to active substance or any IMP excipient.
Add: baseline conventional imaging to be performed at least 24 hours prior to the investigational rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET scan.
Add: focused physical examination could be performed by a clinician and could be by telephone.
Specify: when collected, pre-sacral LNs to be placed in a separate packet from other specimens prior to pathology assessment.
Increase: from 2-3 central readers for the rhPSMA-7.3 (18F) PET scans and the information they were provided add: Independent Review Charter.
Clarify: conventional imaging performed at non-participating institutions allowed if scans were reviewed by study site.
Add: text on replacement of dropouts.
Amend: time from end of injection of rhPSMA-7 (18F) to imaging start from 50-90 mins to 50-70 mins.
Update: SAE reporting email address and clarify SAEs to be reported immediately.
Add: criteria to temporarily halt/stop enrollment.
Add: exclude patients with known hypersensitivity to the active substance or any IMP excipient.
Add: option for remote study monitoring (COVID-19).
Clarify: urgent safety measures may include amendments made due to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure patient safety by minimizing SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
Minor typographical edit. |
||
29 Sep 2020 |
Updates to implement feedback from BfArM:
Remove: reference to remote consent and pre-screening via telephone contact, which were not permitted in Germany.
Administrative change to update the Medical Monitor details. |
||
Interruptions (globally) |
|||
Were there any global interruptions to the trial? No | |||
Limitations and caveats |
|||
Limitations of the trial such as small numbers of subjects analysed or technical problems leading to unreliable data. | |||
None |