Search

Background: The prognosis of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who have progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin is dismal. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of second-line liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic biliary tract cancer that has progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin.Methods: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b (NIFTY) study was done at five academic institutions in South Korea and included patients aged 19 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic biliary tract cancer that had progressed on first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. By use of an interactive web-based response system integrated with an electronic data capture system, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks (block size 4) to receive either intravenous liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 for 90 min) plus intravenous leucovorin (400 mg/m2 for 30 min) and intravenous fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 for 46 h) every 2 weeks or leucovorin and fluorouracil only every 2 weeks, and were stratified by primary tumour site, previous surgery with curative intent, and participating centre. Study treatment was continued until the patient had disease progression or unacceptable toxicities, or withdrew consent. The primary endpoint was blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the full analysis set and the safety analysis set, respectively, both of which comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03524508, and enrolment is complete.Findings: Between Sept 5, 2018, and Feb 18, 2020, 193 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 174 (88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group and 86 in the fluorouracil plus leucovorin group) were enrolled and included in the full analysis and safety analysis sets. At a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·7-18·7), the median BICR-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group (7·1 months, 95% CI 3·6-8·8) than in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group (1·4 months, 1·2-1·5; hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·39-0·81; p=0·0019). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [24%] of 88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group vs one [1%] of 86 in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group) and fatigue or asthenia (11 [13%] vs three [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 (42%) patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin and 21 (24%) patients receiving fluorouracil and leucovorin. There were no treatment-related deaths.Interpretation: Adding liposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil and leucovorin significantly improved BICR-assessed progression-free survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin could be considered a standard-of-care second-line therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer.Funding: Servier and HK inno.N Translation: For the Korean translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment.Findings: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis.Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting.Funding: US National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies of a modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine plus irinotecan) regimen suggest promising efficacy and tolerability profiles in the first-line and second-line settings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the mXELIRI regimen with that of standard FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), with or without bevacizumab in both regimens, as a second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients from 98 hospitals in Japan, China, and South Korea who were aged 20 years or older with histologically confirmed and unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma, and who had withdrawn from first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days, with or without bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil [2400 mg/m2], repeated every 14 days, with or without the addition of bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) via a centralised electronic system. We used the minimisation method to stratify randomisation by country, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, previous oxaliplatin treatment, and concomitant bevacizumab treatment. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1·30 for the hazard ratio (HR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996306, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.Findings: Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 13, 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=326) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=324). After a median follow-up of 15·8 months (IQR 8·7-24·9), a total of 490 patients had died (242 in the mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab group and 248 in the FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab group) and the median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 15·3-19·1) in the mXELIRI group and 15·4 months (13·0-17·7) in the FOLFIRI group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·71-1·02; pnon-inferiority<0·0001). In the per-protocol safety population, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (affecting 52 [17%] of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 133 [43%] of 310 in the FOLFIRI group). Incidences of grade 3-4 diarrhoea were higher in the mXELIRI group (22 [7%]) than in the FOLFIRI group (ten [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 46 (15%) of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 63 (20%) of 310 in the FOLFIRI group. Two treatment-related deaths (one pneumonitis and one lung infection) were observed in the mXELIRI group and there was one treatment-related death (lung infection) in the FOLFIRI group.Interpretation: mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab in terms of overall survival. mXELIRI could be an alternative to FOLFIRI as a standard second-line backbone treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, at least for Asian patient populations.Funding: Chugai Pharmaceutical and F Hoffmann-La Roche. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.Methods: The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry.Findings: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment.Interpretation: Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma.Funding: Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the various clinical and thyroid dosimetric parameters that could predict the risk of primary hypothyroidism (HT) after intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and to determine useful thyroid dose constraints to guide radiation therapy planning.Methods and Materials: From September 2009 to August 2012, 102 clinically euthyroid NPC patients were included in this study. All patients were treated with IMRT and randomized to induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemo-IMRT or concurrent chemo-IMRT alone. Thyroid function was evaluated by measuring thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine at each annual follow-up visit. Various clinical and dosimetric parameters (eg, V40 [percentage of thyroid volume receiving >40 Gy]) were obtained. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of HT.Results: Median follow-up was 48.8 months. Among the 102 patients, 44 (43.1%) developed HT within 2 years after radiation therapy. The median time to HT was 36.7 months (range, 24.9-49.0 months). The 1-year and 2-year cumulative incidence rates of HT were 33% and 44.5%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that younger age, early T stage, minimum dose to the thyroid gland, V40, and V45 were associated with HT. On multivariate analysis, younger age (P=.017), early T stage (P=.005), and V40 (P=.009) remained statistically significant. Patients with V40 > 85% had significantly higher cumulative incidence rates of HT than patients with V40 ≤ 85% (P=.007).Conclusions: Thyroid V40 is predictive of primary HT after IMRT for NPC, and V40 ≤ 85% can be a useful dose constraint to adopt during IMRT planning without compromising tumor coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel.Methods: tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546).Findings: Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10-10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62-67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86-1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]).Interpretation: The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup.Funding: Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous trials from our group suggested an overall survival benefit with five cycles of adjuvant full-dose epirubicin plus ifosfamide in localised high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall, and no difference in overall survival benefit between three cycles versus five cycles of the same neoadjuvant regimen. We aimed to show the superiority of the neoadjuvant administration of histotype-tailored regimen to standard chemotherapy.Methods: For this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, multicentre trial, patients were enrolled from 32 hospitals in Italy, Spain, France, and Poland. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with localised, high-risk (high malignancy grade, 5 cm or longer in diameter, and deeply located according to the investing fascia), soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities or trunk wall and belonging to one of five histological subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three cycles of full-dose standard chemotherapy (epirubicin 60 mg/m2 per day [short infusion, days 1 and 2] plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day [days 1, 2, and 3], repeated every 21 days) or histotype-tailored chemotherapy: for high-grade myxoid liposarcoma, trabectedin 1·3 mg/m2 via 24-h continuous infusion, repeated every 21 days; for leiomyosarcoma, gemcitabine 1800 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 180 min plus dacarbazine 500 mg/m2 on day 1 intravenously over 20 min, repeated every 14 days; for synovial sarcoma, high-dose ifosfamide 14 g/m2, given over 14 days via an external infusion pump, every 28 days; for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour, intravenous etoposide 150 mg/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3) plus intravenous ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day (days 1, 2, and 3), repeated every 21 days; and for undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 intravenously over 90 min plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 intravenously over 1 h, repeated every 21 days. Randomisation was stratified by administration of preoperative radiotherapy and by country of enrolment. Computer-generated random lists were prepared by use of permuted balanced blocks of size 4 and 6 in random sequence. An internet-based randomisation system ensured concealment of the treatment assignment until the patient had been registered into the system. No masking of treatment assignments was done. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The primary and safety analyses were planned in the intention-to-treat population. We did yearly futility analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01710176, and with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials, number EUDRACT 2010-023484-17, and is closed to patient entry.Findings: Between May 19, 2011, and May 13, 2016, 287 patients were randomly assigned to a group (145 to standard chemotherapy and 142 to histotype-tailored chemotherapy), all of whom, except one patient assigned to standard chemotherapy, were included in the efficacy analysis (97 [34%] with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma; 64 [22%] with high-grade myxoid liposarcoma; 70 [24%] with synovial sarcoma; 27 [9%] with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour; and 28 [10%] with leiomyosarcoma). At the third futility analysis, with a median follow-up of 12·3 months (IQR 2·75-28·20), the projected disease-free survival at 46 months was 62% (95% CI 48-77) in the standard chemotherapy group and 38% (22-55) in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (stratified log-rank p=0·004; hazard ratio 2·00, 95% CI 1·22-3·26; p=0·006). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the standard chemotherapy group (n=125) were neutropenia (107 [86%]), anaemia (24 [19%]), and thrombocytopenia (21 [17%]); the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event in the histotype-tailored chemotherapy group (n=114) was neutropenia (30 [26%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported in both groups. In agreement with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, the study was closed to patient entry after the third futility analysis.Interpretation: In a population of patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma, we did not show any benefit of a neoadjuvant histotype-tailored chemotherapy regimen over the standard chemotherapy regimen. The benefit seen with the standard chemotherapy regimen suggests that this benefit might be the added value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy itself in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma.Funding: European Union grant (Eurosarc FP7 278472). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maintenance therapy improves outcomes in various tumour types, but cumulative toxic effects limit the choice of drugs. We investigated whether maintenance therapy with vinflunine would delay disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who had achieved disease control with first-line chemotherapy.Methods: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2 trial in 21 Spanish hospitals. Eligible patients had locally advanced, surgically unresectable, or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract, adequate organ function, and disease control after four to six cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine (carboplatin allowed after cycle four). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive vinflunine or best supportive care until disease progression. We initially used block randomisation with a block size of six. Four lists were created for the two stratification factors of starting dose of vinflunine and presence of liver metastases. After a protocol amendment, number of cisplatin and gemcitabine cycles was added as a stratification factor, and eight lists were created, still with a block size of six. Finally, we changed to a minimisation procedure to reduce the risk of imbalance between groups. Vinflunine was given every 21 days as a 20 min intravenous infusion at 320 mg/m2 or at 280 mg/m2 in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1, age 75 years or older, previous pelvic radiotherapy, or creatinine clearance lower than 60 mL/min. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival longer than 5·3 months in the vinflunine group, assessed by modified intention to treat. Comparison of progression-free survival between treatment groups was a secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01529411.Findings: Between April 12, 2012, and Jan 29, 2015, we enrolled 88 patients, of whom 45 were assigned to receive vinflunine and 43 to receive best supportive care. One patient from the vinflunine group was lost to follow-up immediately after randomisation and was excluded from the analyses. One patient in the best supportive care group became ineligible for the study and did not receive treatment due to a delay in enrolment, but was included in the intention-to-treat efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 15·6 months (IQR 8·5-26·0), 29 (66%) of 44 patients in the vinflunine group had disease progression and 24 (55%) had died, compared with 36 (84%) of 43 patients with disease progression and 32 (74%) deaths in the best supportive care group. Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 2·0-11·1) in the vinflunine group and 4·2 months (2·1-6·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96, p=0·031). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 in the vinflunine group vs none of 42 in the best supportive care group), asthenia or fatigue (seven [16%] vs one [2%]), and constipation (six [14%] vs none). 18 serious adverse events were reported in the vinflunine group and 14 in the best supportive care group. One patient in the vinflunine group died from pneumonia that was deemed to be treatment related.Interpretation: In patients with disease control after first-line chemotherapy, progression-free survival exceeded the acceptable threshold with vinflunine maintenance therapy. Moreover, progression-free survival was longer with vinflunine maintenance therapy than with best supportive care. Vinflunine maintenance had an acceptable safety profile. Further studies of the role of vinflunine are warranted.Funding: Pierre-Fabre Médicament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting.Methods: In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 10(8) plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01383148.Findings: Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 [50%]; placebo and chemotherapy 111 [50%]). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4-6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2-5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54-1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42-1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1-2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 [26%], grade 4 13 [12%] in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 [21%], grade 4 11 [10%] in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 [11%] vs grade 3 16 [15%]), and fatigue (grade 3 12 [11%], grade 5 one [1%] vs grade 3 13 [12%]; no grade 4 events).Interpretation: TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part.Funding: Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) provides survival benefits but may result in considerable toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) measurements during CRT have not been widely reported. This paper reports HRQL data from the Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer (SCALOP) trial, including validation of the QLQ-PAN26 tool in CRT.Methods and Materials: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the pancreas were eligible. Following 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) chemotherapy, patients with stable and responding disease were randomized to a further cycle of GEMCAP followed by capecitabine- or gemcitabine-based CRT. HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Pancreatic Cancer module (PAN26).Results: A total of 114 patients from 28 UK centers were registered and 74 patients randomized. There was improvement in the majority of HRQL scales during induction chemotherapy. Patients with significant deterioration in fatigue, appetite loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms during CRT recovered within 3 weeks following CRT. Differences in changes in HRQL scores between trial arms rarely reached statistical significance; however, where they did, they favored capecitabine therapy. PAN26 scales had good internal consistency and were able to distinguish between subgroups of patients experiencing toxicity.Conclusions: Although there is deterioration in HRQL following CRT, this resolves within 3 weeks. HRQL data support the use of capecitabine- over gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. The QLQ-PAN26 is a reliable and valid tool for use in patients receiving CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.Methods: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434.Findings: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ21df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study.Interpretation: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes.Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]