Search

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of antiemetic regimens using ondansetron alone (O) versus ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OD) versus ondansetron plus dexamethasone plus lorazepam (ODA) in the prevention of emesis induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy., Design: Randomized, double-blind trial., Patients and Methods: In this study, 75 patients who were receiving cisplatin (60 mg/m2) on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil (1,000 mg/m2) on day 2 to day 6 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to one of three treatment regimens: O, OD, or ODA. The patients assigned to O regimen received ondansetron 8 mg intravenously as a loading dose 15 minutes prior to cisplatin, then 1 mg/h continuous i.v. infusion (24 mg/day) for 48 hours. OD regimen consisted of ondansetron given as above plus dexamethasone administered at a dose of 10 mg i.v. injection every 12 hours for 3 days. ODA regimen was OD regimen plus lorazepam administered at a dose of 0.5 mg orally every 6 hours for 3 days. To ensure blinding, O group patients received 10 ml placebo-saline i.v. injection every 12 hours for 3 days, and O and OD group patients received placebo tablets orally every 6 hours for 3 days., Results: One patient did not receive assigned antiemetic regimen and was excluded from the analysis. In the acute phase, complete control of emesis was seen in 85% of all patients, and there was no significant difference among the three groups (p = .442). Complete control of nausea during the acute phase was achieved in 10 patients (41.2%) treated with O regimen alone, in 23 patients (92.0%) treated with OD regimen, and in 16 patients (64.0%) treated with ODA regimen (p < .001). In the delayed phase, 68% of patients who received the three-drug combination (ODA) and 56% of patients who received the two-drug combination (OD) obtained complete control of emesis, as opposed to 29% who were given ondansetron alone (p < .021). The incidences of headache, flushing, dry mouth, hiccups, and constipation were mild and tolerable and did not differ among the three groups., Discussion: Ondansetron was very effective in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during the acute phase after cisplatin administration. In treating delayed nausea and vomiting, although the results of three regimens were still disappointing, the combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone or plus lorazepam provided superior results. Patients who received the lorazepam-containing regimen appeared more comfortable and less restless than those who were given other regimens.

BackgroundTreatment options are limited for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) following progression after first-line platinum-based therapy, particularly in Asian countries.Patients and methodsIn this randomised, open-label, phase III trial, we enrolled Asian patients aged ≥18 years, with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent/metastatic HNSCC following first-line platinum-based therapy who were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1. Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week), stratified by ECOG performance status and prior EGFR-targeted antibody therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to treatment allocation.ResultsA total of 340 patients were randomised (228 afatinib; 112 methotrexate). After a median follow-up of 6.4 months, afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression/death by 37% versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.82; P = 0.0005; median 2.9 versus 2.6 months; landmark analysis at 12 and 24 weeks, 58% versus 41%, 21% versus 9%). Improved PFS was complemented by quality of life benefits. Objective response rate was 28% with afatinib and 13% with methotrexate. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were rash/acne (4% with afatinib versus 0% with methotrexate), diarrhoea (4% versus 0%), fatigue (1% versus 5%), anaemia (

The excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) enzyme plays a rate-limiting role in the nucleotide excision repair pathway and is associated with resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of ERCC1 expression as a predictive marker of survival in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) treated with cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). ERCC1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemical staining. The median age of the 45 patients analysed was 56 years (range 27-75 years), and 82% were men; 73% of all specimens showed high expression of ERCC1. The overall tumour response rate after CCRT was 89%. The median follow-up was 53.6 months (95% CI, 34.5-72.7 months). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 58.7 and 61.3%, respectively. Univariate analyses showed that patients with low expression of ERCC1 had a significantly higher 3-year PFS (83.3 vs 49.4%, P=0.036) and OS (91.7 vs 45.5%, P=0.013) rates. Multivariate analysis showed that low expression of ERCC1 was an independent predictor for prolonged survival (HR, 0.120; 95% CI, 0.016-0.934, P=0.043). These results suggest that ERCC1 expression might be a useful predictive marker of locally advanced SCCHN in patients treated with cisplatin-based CCRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Irinotecan and cisplatin demonstrated promising outcomes in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. According to the dosage and schedule of irinotecan, efficacy and toxicity profiles showed subtle differences. This study was designed to evaluate efficacy and toxicity of 3-week schedule of irinotecan/cisplatin in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. The primary objective was to evaluate response rate and secondary objectives were overall survival and progression-free survival. Patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Irinotecan 65 mg m-2 was administered on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 60 mg m-2 on day 1. Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. Seven out of 54 patients (13.0%) had complete response, and partial response was observed in 33 (61.1%). The overall response rate was 74.1% (95% CI; 62.0-82.2%). Stable disease was observed in eight (14.8%) and no progressive disease was observed. After a median follow-up duration of 28.7 months, the median overall survival and progressive-free survival were 13.6 and 6.5 months, respectively. Major grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (50.0%), anorexia (42.6%), diarrhoea (29.6%), fatigue (29.6%) and vomiting (13.0%). There was one treatment-related death owing to pneumonia. Three-week schedule of irinotecan/cisplatin showed effective antitumour activity and moderate toxicities in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that is selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum-based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown.Methods: In this randomized, international, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.Results: The median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression-free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%).Conclusions: Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first-line EGFR-TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of capecitabine and cisplatin (XP) combination chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).Patients and methods: The chemotherapy regimen consisted of capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 orally twice a day on day 1 to day 14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1. Each cycle was repeated every 3 weeks up to a maximum of six cycles.Results: By intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was 50% [complete response, 0/36; partial response, 18/36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32% to 67%]. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.1–5.3 months), and the median response duration was 4.9 months. The median overall survival and 1-year survival rate were 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5–12.1 months) and 43.3%, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events were anorexia (8.8%), fatigue (4.4%), diarrhea (4.4%), stomatitis (3.6%), and the hand–foot syndrome (1.5%). The most common grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse event was neutropenia (14.6%), followed by anemia (1.5%). There was no treatment-related death.Conclusion: The XP combination regimen has antitumor activity and acceptable safety profile in patients with metastatic or recurrent SCCHN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current study, we show that the proportion of never smokers with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) cannot be ignored and the EGFR mutations are not infrequent in this group. Genetic analysis and comparison using next-generation sequencing suggests that SCLC in never-smokers has both common and variant features compared with SCLC in smokers.Background Once regarded as a smoker's disease, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been occasionally detected in never-smokers as smoking rates decrease worldwide. We investigated the clinical and genetic characteristics of SCLC in never-smokers. Patients and methods Patients diagnosed with SCLC were grouped into smokers and never-smokers. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. For SCLC in never-smokers, somatic mutation profiling was carried out using the AmpliSeq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 and semiconductor sequencing technology. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation was confirmed by PNAClamp™. Results In total, 391 SCLC patients treated over a 5-year period were analyzed. Fifty patients (13%) were never-smokers. The median overall survival was 18.2 months in never-smokers and 13.1 months in smokers (P = 0.054). Never-smoking history was independently a good prognostic factor [hazard ratio = 0.645, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.456–0.914], as were limited disease (HR = 0.372, 95% CI 0.294–0.471), and lower age (HR = 0.709, 95% CI 0.566–0.888). The objective response rates to first-line etoposide/cisplatin therapy were similar between never-smokers and smokers (75% versus 81%). Of 28 genetically evaluable never-smokers, EGFR mutations were detected in four cases (two L858R, one deletion in exon 19, and one G719A). Other mutations were in TP53 (n = 26), RB1 (n = 7), PTEN (n = 5), MET (n = 4), and SMAD4 (n = 3). Conclusions Never-smokers with SCLC are increasingly prevalent and have a better prognosis than smokers with SCLC in Korea. Our study warrants further investigation in this group. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The randomized, phase III AVAPERL trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab maintenance with or without pemetrexed in nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with bevacizumab–pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, OS events occurred in 58% of all patients. OS was numerically longer with bevacizumab–pemetrexed versus bevacizumab when measured from randomization (17.1 versus 13.2 months, HR, 0.87 [0.63–1.21]; P=0.29). Second-line therapy was administered in 77% and 70% of patients in the bevacizumab and bevacizumab–pemetrexed arms, respectively.Background The randomized, phase III AVAPERL trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab maintenance with or without pemetrexed in nonsquamous nonsmall-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged with bevacizumab–pemetrexed, but overall survival (OS) data were immature. In this article, we report an independent, updated analysis of survival outcomes in AVAPERL. Patients and methods Patients with advanced nsNSCLC received first-line bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg), cisplatin (75 mg/m2), and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (q3w) for four cycles. Nonprogressing patients were randomized to maintenance bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) or bevacizumab–pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) q3w until progression or consent withdrawal. The primary end point of the trial was PFS; in this independent OS analysis, participating study centers were contacted to collect survival data on patients still alive at the time of the first analysis. Results A total of 376 patients received induction treatment. Disease control was confirmed in 71.9% of patients; 253 patients were randomized to maintenance treatment with bevacizumab (n = 125) or bevacizumab–pemetrexed (n = 128). At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, patients allocated to bevacizumab–pemetrexed had significantly improved PFS versus those on bevacizumab when measured from randomization [7.4 versus 3.7 months, hazard ratio (HR), 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44–0.75); P < 0.0001]. OS events occurred in 58% of all patients. OS was numerically longer with bevacizumab–pemetrexed versus bevacizumab when measured from randomization [17.1 versus 13.2 months, HR 0.87 (0.63–1.21); P = 0.29]. Second-line therapy was administered in 77% and 70% of patients in the bevacizumab and bevacizumab–pemetrexed arms, respectively. No new adverse events were reported during this updated analysis. Conclusion In an unselected population of nsNSCLC patients achieving disease control on platinum-based induction therapy, maintenance with bevacizumab–pemetrexed was associated with a nonsignificant increase in OS over bevacizumab alone. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background We compared late thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) with early TRT in the treatment of limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). Patients and methods Patients with LD-SCLC received four cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin every 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TRT administered concurrently with the first cycle (early TRT) or the third cycle (late TRT) of chemotherapy. The primary end point was complete response rate. Results Two hundred twenty-two patients were randomly assigned. Late TRT was not inferior to early TRT in terms of the complete response rate (early versus late; 36.0% versus 38.0%). Other efficacy measures including overall survival [median, 24.1 versus 26.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.18–1.62] and progression-free survival (median, 12.4 versus 11.2 months; HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.37–1.84) were not different between two arms. No statistical difference was noted in the pattern of treatment failures. However, neutropenic fever occurred more commonly in the early TRT arm than the late TRT arm (21.6% versus 10.2%; P = 0.02). Conclusion In LD-SCLC treatment, TRT starting in the third cycle of chemotherapy seemed to be noninferior to early TRT, and had a more favorable profile with regard to neutropenic fever. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background In AURA3 (NCT02151981), osimertinib, a 3rd-generation EGFR-TKI, significantly prolonged progressionfree survival (PFS) and improved response rate vs plt-pem in pts with centrally confirmed EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC and progression on a prior EGFR-TKI. Here we report mature OS data. Methods Adult pts were randomised 2:1 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or intravenous pem (500 mg per m2 of body surface area) + carboplatin (target area under the curve 5)/cisplatin (75 mg per m2), every 3 weeks, ≤6 cycles. Treatment beyond progression (RECIST 1.1) was allowed if clinical benefit continued. Pts receiving plt-pem could cross over to osimertinib on disease progression. Asymptomatic CNS metastases were allowed. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. OS and safety are reported as secondary endpoints. Data cut-off (DCO): 15 March 2019. Results In total, 419 pts were randomised (osimertinib, n = 279; plt-pem, n = 140); 99 pts (71%) crossed over to osimertinib from plt-pem. At DCO, 188 pts (67%) in the osimertinib arm vs 93 pts (66%) in the plt-pem arm had died, including 66/99 (67%) crossover pts; median OS 26.8 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.5, 31.5) vs 22.5 mo (95% CI 20.2, 28.8) respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% CI 0.67, 1.12; p = 0.277); survival rate at 24 mo was 55% vs 43% and at 36 mo was 37% vs 30%. Time to first subsequent treatment showed a large, clinically meaningful numerical advantage towards osimertinib, HR 0.21 (95% CI 0.16, 0.28; p < 0.001); time to second subsequent treatment, HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.11; p = 0.263). In both arms, 99% pts had any adverse event (AE). Any AE grade ≥3 causally related to study treatment was 9% vs 34% for osimertinib and plt-pem respectively. Most common AEs were diarrhoea, 44% (grade ≥3, 1%), and nausea, 49% (grade ≥3, 4%), with osimertinib and plt-pem respectively. Conclusions A numerical advantage in OS was observed for pts receiving osimertinib vs plt-pem, with the majority of pts in the plt-pem arm having crossed over to osimertinib. The safety profile of osimertinib remains consistent with previous findings. Clinical trial identification NCT02151981. Editorial acknowledgement Laura Crocker, BMedSci, of iMed Comms, an Ashfield Company, who provided medical writing support funded by AstraZeneca. Legal entity responsible for the study AstraZeneca. Funding AstraZeneca. Disclosure Y-L. Wu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Honoraria (self): Eli Lilly; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. T.S.K. Mok: Honoraria (self): ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd. Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. LTD. AstraZeneca (before 1/1/19), Bayer, BI, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, Celgene, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, Hengrui Therapeutics Inc. Ignyt; Advisory / Consultancy: ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd. Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. LTD. AstraZeneca (before 1/1/19), Bayer, BI, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, BMS, Celgene, Cirina, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, geneDecode Co. Ltd. (un; Leadership role: AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ, XCovery; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Shareholder: Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd. Stock option: Clearbridge Biomedics (now Biolidics Ltd.), Loxo-Oncology, OrigiMed Co. Ltd. Virtus Medical Group; Full / Part-time employment: The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Officer / Board of Directors: Remunerated: AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med Non-remunerated: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG) Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF) Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CS. J-Y. Han: Honoraria (self): Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly; Research grant / Funding (self): Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda. M-J. Ahn: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Lilly, Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Alpha Pharmaceutical, Takeda. S.S. Ramalingam: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Loxo, Nektar, Tesaro; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tesaro, Advaxis, Takeda. S-W. Kim: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca. F.A. Shepherd: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AstraZeneca. J. Laskin: Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer. H. Akamatsu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution): Chugai; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim. W-C. Su: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim. T. John: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Ignyta, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer. M. Sebastian: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Lilly. H. Mann: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. M. Miranda: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. G. Laus: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. Y. Rukazenkov: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca. V. Papadimitrakopoulou: Honoraria (self): F Hoffman-La Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Nektar Therapeutics, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Arrys Therapeutics, Merck&Co, LOXO Oncology, Araxes Pharma, F.Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd, Janssen Research Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly &Co, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Takeda ; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eli Lilly &Co, Novartis, Merck, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, F Hoffman-La Roche, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Checkmate, Incyte. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]