Search

Background: Use of first-line PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy is increasing in advanced ovarian cancer. Understanding the efficacy of first subsequent therapy (FST) in patients experiencing disease progression in the first-line setting is important to optimize post-progression treatments. We evaluated the efficacy of FST in patients from PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) who received first-line olaparib maintenance., Patients and Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy following disease progression by assessing time from FST to second subsequent therapy (SST) according to whether progression occurred during versus after first-line olaparib maintenance and FST type. A multivariate Cox model was used in the olaparib plus bevacizumab arm to identify prognostic factors influencing the efficacy of subsequent chemotherapy., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 544 (67.5%) progressed and received subsequent chemotherapy. The median time from FST to SST was shorter in patients in the olaparib plus bevacizumab arm who progressed during first-line olaparib maintenance (6.1 months) than in those who progressed after first-line olaparib maintenance (11.4 months). Multivariate analysis indicated that progression after (versus during) first-line olaparib maintenance influenced time from FST to SST (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.84; P=0.0011) independently of platinum-free interval or clinical risk. Among patients who progressed and received platinum-based chemotherapy with a PARP inhibitor as FST, the efficacy of subsequent therapies was also dependent upon whether progression occurred during versus after first-line olaparib maintenance., Conclusions: These results suggest that the timing of disease progression relative to first-line olaparib maintenance may impact the efficacy of subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy. Although results should be interpreted with caution, across all subgroups, including patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy with PARP inhibitor rechallenge as FST, the median time from FST to SST was longer if progression occurred after versus during first-line olaparib maintenance., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Avelumab first-line maintenance treatment was approved for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) without progression following platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), based on the results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial., Objective: To report the results from AVENANCE, a real-world study of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective and prospective, noninterventional study (NCT04822350). Eligible patients with aUC without progression on first-line PBC were enrolled at 82 centers in France between July 2021 and May 2022. The effectiveness population included 595 patients. The median follow-up was 26.3 mo., Intervention: Previous, ongoing, or planned avelumab first-line maintenance treatment., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) from avelumab initiation (primary endpoint) and safety were evaluated., Results and Limitations: The median age was 73.0 yr, and performance status was 0/1 in 91% of patients and ≥2 in 9.3%. The most common prior first-line chemotherapy regimen was carboplatin plus gemcitabine (61%). At data cutoff (December 7, 2023), the median duration of avelumab treatment was 5.6 mo, 125 patients remained on avelumab, and 55% had received second-line treatment. The median OS from avelumab initiation was 21.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.6-24.6), and the median progression-free survival was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 5.2-6.5). In exploratory analyses of this population without disease progression on PBC, the median OS from the start of first-line PBC was 26.5 mo overall, and in subgroups that received second-line enfortumab vedotin (n = 55) or PBC (n = 79), it was 41.5 and 24.5 mo, respectively., Conclusions: Real-world data from AVENANCE confirm the effectiveness and safety of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment in a heterogeneous population, supporting its recommendation for cisplatin-eligible and cisplatin-ineligible patients with aUC who are progression free after first-line PBC. In an exploratory analysis, a small subgroup that received a treatment sequence of first-line PBC without disease progression followed by avelumab first-line maintenance and second-line enfortumab vedotin had a median OS of >3 yr., Patient Summary: A French real-world study, called AVENANCE, looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer whose tumor disappeared, shrank, or stopped growing with chemotherapy. Overall, results were consistent with those seen in a previous clinical trial, and on average, people treated with avelumab maintenance lived for 26.5 mo from the start of chemotherapy. Analyses of different groups of people found that survival varied, with people living for an average of 18-42 mo depending on what treatment they received after they finished avelumab treatment., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: In France, radiation oncologists are predominantly men with only 44 % of women. Many studies have highlighted gender disparities in medicine. The main objective of our study was to assess the impact of discriminations on radiation oncologists' career., Materials and Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire, adapted from the one used by the ESMO W4O group, was sent to all radiation oncologists in France between March and June 2022. It included questions related to professional experience, gender, socio-ethnicity, sexual orientation, and personal life., Results: Among the 999 radiation oncologists and 168 residents in France, 225 questionnaires were collected (19.2 %). Among the respondents, 60 % were women and 25 % were residents. The mean age was 39.2 years (range: 25-78). The career satisfaction rate was 92 %, with no gender difference. Gender was considered to have a negative impact on the career development by 65 % of women. Social origin was an obstacle to career development for 37 % of all the respondents, and ethnic origin for 25 %. Sixty two percent of women reported having experienced inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment in their workplace, 38 % felt that having a child had "extremely" or "very" much impacted their career versus 8.5 % of men (p < 0.001). The most popular proposals for improvement were the creation of a network of women radiation oncologists with specific educational programs and the addition of quotas in institutions and key positions., Conclusions: This study is the first one assessing the various type of discrimination experienced by radiation oncologists in France. We make a few proposals for improvement of training and working conditions, regardless of the origin and gender., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Objective: In the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial (NCT02477644), adding maintenance olaparib to bevacizumab provided a substantial progression-free survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, irrespective of clinical risk. Subsequently, a clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival was reported with olaparib plus bevacizumab in the HRD-positive subgroup. We report updated progression-free survival and overall survival by clinical risk and HRD status., Methods: Patients in clinical response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab received maintenance olaparib (up to 24 months) plus bevacizumab (up to 15 months in total) or placebo plus bevacizumab. This post hoc analysis evaluated 5-year progression-free survival and mature overall survival in patients classified by clinical risk and HRD status., Results: Of 806 randomized patients, 74% were higher-risk and 26% were lower-risk. In higher-risk HRD-positive patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34 to 0.61), with 5-year progression-free survival of 35% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 15% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.00), with 5-year overall survival of 55% versus 42%, respectively. In lower-risk HRD-positive patients, the HR for progression-free survival was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.45), with 5-year progression-free survival of 72% with olaparib plus bevacizumab versus 28% with bevacizumab alone; and the HR for overall survival was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), with 5-year overall survival of 88% versus 61%, respectively. No benefit was seen in HRD-negative patients regardless of clinical risk., Conclusion: This post hoc analysis indicates that in patients with newly diagnosed advanced HRD-positive ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab should not be limited to those considered at higher risk of disease progression. Five-year progression-free survival rates support long-term remission and suggest an increased potential for cure with particular benefit suggested in lower-risk HRD-positive patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Domenica Lorusso reports consultancy fees (personal) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvest, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; and travel support from Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, and GSK. Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier reports board membership (personal and institution) for Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca; and research funding (personal and institution) from Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Philipp Harter reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, Clovis, Eisai, Mersana, and Exscientia; membership on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, and Eisai; and research funding (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, Genmab, Immunogen, Seagen, Clovis, and Novartis. Claire Cropet reports no conflicts of interest. Cristina Caballero reports no conflicts of interest. Pia Wolfrum-Ristau reports no conflicts of interest.Toyomi Satoh reports no conflicts of interest. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees (personal) from Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, BMS, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Mersana, Molecular Partners, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, and Zentalis; contracted research (via KULeuven; institution) for Oncoinvent AS; corporate sponsored research (institution) from Amgen and Roche; and travel support (personal) from Karyopharm, Genmab, and Novocure.Gabriella Parma reports no conflicts of interest. Trine Jakobi Nøttrup reports no conflicts of interest. Coriolan Lebreton reports honoraria (personal) from Eisai, Clovis Oncology, MSD, and GSK. Peter A Fasching reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Agendia, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Seagen; invited speaker fees (personal) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Seagen; and medical writing support (personal) from Roche. Carmela Pisano reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for AstraZeneca, MSD and GSK; and honoraria (personal) from Clovis Oncology. Luis Manso reports no conflicts of interest. Hugues Bourgeois reports no conflicts of interest. Ingo Runnebaum reports no conflicts of interest. Claudio Zamagni reports reports grants or contract to self from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; grants or contract to self and institution from AstraZeneca, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Tesaro, and Teva; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Celgene, Instituto Gentili, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Tesaro; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro; and other financial or non-interests for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, QuintilesIMS, Roche, and Tesaro. Anne-Claire Hardy-Bessard reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for MSD, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, and Novartis. Andreas Schnelzer reports no conflicts of interest. Michel Fabbro reports honoraria from GSK. Barbara Schmalfeldt reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; consultancy or advisory roles from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; membership of a speaker’s bureau for Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis, GSK, and MSD; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro. Dominique Berton reports no conflicts of interest. Antje Belau reports honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Clovis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo Company, Lilly, and Seagen; advisory roles for Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Company, and Seagen; and funding for travel or accommodation expenses from Roche, AstraZeneca, and Daiichi Sankyo Company. Jean-Pierre Lotz reports no conflicts of interest. Martina Gropp-Meier reports no conflicts of interest. Laurence Gladieff reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; and participation on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Hans-Joachim Lück reports participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, and Lilly and speaker roles for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and Novartis. Sophie Abadie-Lacourtoisie reports no conflicts of interest. Eric Pujade-Lauraine reports membership on an advisory board (personal) for Roche, GSK, and AstraZeneca; Independent Data Monitoring Committee board membership (personal) for Agenus and Incyte; and employment (personal) at ARCAGY Research. Isabelle Ray-Coquard reports honoraria (personal) from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; honoraria (institution) from GSK, MSD, Roche, and BMS; advisory/consulting fees from Abbvie, Agenus, Advaxis, BMS, PharmaMar, Genmab, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, GSK, MSD, Deciphera, Mersena, Merck Sereno, Novartis, Amgen, Tesaro, and Clovis Oncology; research grant/funding (personal) from MSD, Roche, and BMS; research grant/funding (institution) from MSD, Roche, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sereno; and travel support from Roche, AstraZeneca, and GSK., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

The aim of the data farming project by the Unitrad group is to produce and use large quantities of structured real-life data throughout radiotherapy treatment. Starting in 2016, target real world data were selected at expert consensus conferences and regularly updated, then captured in MOSAIQ© as the patient was treated. For each partner institution, the data was then stored in a relational database, then extracted and used by researchers to create real world knowledge. This production was carried out in a multicentre, coordinated fashion. When necessary, the raw data was shared according to the research projects, in compliance with regulations. Feedack was provided at each stage, enabling the system to evolve flexibly and rapidly, using the "agile" method. This work, which is constantly evolving, has led to the creation of health data warehouses focused on data of interest in radiotherapy, and the publication of numerous academic studies. It forms part of the wider context of the exploitation of real-life data in cancerology. Unitrad data farming is a collaborative project for creating knowledge from real-life radiotherapy data, based on an active network of clinicians and researchers., (Copyright © 2023 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Deeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0-4 months; n  = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n  = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE-MM2 receiving ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) ( n  = 351) or placebo-Rd ( n  = 354) were evaluated post hoc . Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS ( n  = 511) or DOR ( n  = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo-Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo-Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor-immunomodulatory drug-steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome., Competing Interests: Paul G. Richardson: Consultancy: BMS/Celgene, Takeda, GSK, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Secura Bio, Karyopharm, AstraZeneca, Novartis; Research funding: Oncopeptides, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Karyopharm. Nizar J. Bahlis: Honoraria and advisory board member: Karyopharm, Genentech, Janssen, BMS, Amgen, Takeda, AbbVie, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer; Research funding: Pfizer. Darrell White: Honoraria: Amgen, Antengene, BMS/Celgene, FORUS Therapeutics, Sanofi, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, Karyopharm. Lionel Karlin: Honoraria: Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, GSK, Sanofi, BMS/Celgene, Takeda; Advisory board member: Janssen, Amgen, GSK, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Sanofi. Sung‐Soo Yoon: Member of advisory board: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron; Research funding: Roche‐Genentech, Kyowa‐Kirin, Yuhan Pharma. Christopher P. Venner: Honoraria: Takeda, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, AbbVie, FORUS Therapeutics. Kenshi Suzuki: Consultancy: Amgen, Takeda, BMS; Research funding: BMS; Honoraria: BMS, Amgen, Takeda, ONO, Novartis, Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen. Hirohiko Shibayama: Research funding: Celgene, Ono, AbbVie, Eisai, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, Essential Pharma Japan, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, HUYABIO International; Honoraria: Ono, Takeda, AbbVie, Eisai, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Celgene, SymBio, Kyowa Kirin. Xiaoquan Zhang, Miguel Villarreal, Philip Twumasi‐Ankrah: Employee: Takeda. Richard Labotka: Employee and equity holder: Takeda. Robert M. Rifkin: Member of board of directors/advisory committee: Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Coherus, Fresenius‐Kabi, Sanofi, Takeda, Karyopharm; Current employment and equity holder: McKesson. Sagar Lonial: Consultancy: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Takeda, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron; Research funding: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Takeda; Honoraria: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Amgen, GSK, Takeda, AbbVie, Merck; Member of board of directors/advisory committee: TG Therapeutics; Ownership of stock/shares: TG Therapeutics. Shaji K. Kumar: Research funding: Celgene, Adaptive, Sanofi, AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, KITE, Merck, MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche; Advisory board member: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive, KITE, MedImmune/AstraZeneca; Member of independent review committee: Oncopeptides. Philippe Moreau: Consultancy and member of advisory board: Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, AbbVie, GSK. Thierry Facon, Fritz Offner, Lotfi Benboubker, Eric Voog, and S. Vincent Rajkumar have no conflict of interest to declare., (© 2023 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial, avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who were progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy, leading to regulatory approval in various countries., Objective: To analyze clinically relevant subgroups from JAVELIN Bladder 100., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC without progression on 1L gemcitabine + cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized to receive avelumab + BSC (n = 350) or BSC alone (n = 350). Median follow-up was >19 mo in both arms (data cutoff October 21, 2019). This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02603432., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: OS (primary endpoint) and PFS were analyzed in protocol-specified and post hoc subgroups using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models., Results and Limitations: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS with avelumab + BSC versus BSC alone were <1.0 across all subgroups examined, including patients treated with 1L cisplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93) or carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.90), patients with PD-L1 + tumors treated with carboplatin + gemcitabine (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39-1.14), and patients whose best response to chemotherapy was a complete response (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.37), partial response (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.84), or stable disease (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Observations were similar for PFS. Limitations include the smaller size and post hoc evaluation without multiplicity adjustment for some subgroups., Conclusions: Analyses of OS and PFS in clinically relevant subgroups were consistent with results for the overall population, further supporting avelumab 1L maintenance as standard-of-care treatment for patients with aUC who are progression-free following 1L platinum-based chemotherapy., Patient Summary: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, maintenance treatment with avelumab helped many different groups of people with advanced cancer of the urinary tract to live longer., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aims to explore the place of the relative in these triadic consultations and how this influences communication., Methods: A mixed-methods research strategy was used. Triadic consultations for the announcement of cancer progression were recorded and following the 3 participants completed questionnaires comprising mirror-items. Recordings and answers were further investigated in a few semi-structured interviews. Comparison of quantitative responses (questionnaires) used Wilcoxon's test for matched series. Qualitative analyses (consultations, interviews) used grounded theory. Patients were over 18, followed for cancer in palliative phase, excluding brain tumors and malignant hemopathies, and presented renewed disease progression. Relatives were over 18 and authorized by the patient to participate., Results: 47 consultations (audio-recordings, answers to questionnaires) and 12 interviews conducted separately with 4 triads were collected. Half the relatives, while remaining in the background, nevertheless contributed to the discussion. For patients, the presence of a relative was considered beneficial and for oncologists it facilitated the announcement. However, symptoms perceived as intimate or private appeared difficult to express for some patients, and for relatives, prognosis was a difficult subject to broach. Although their relationship with time and their expectations may differ, patients and relatives found consultations positive. Oncologists appeared to underestimate the patient's level of understanding ( P <0.001) and perceptions of the seriousness of the disease ( P =0.009) but not those of relatives. They did not evaluate the relative's state of health and check what the dyad had retained., Significance of Results: Training via simulation sessions should be adapted to communication involving relatives.

Puprpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy is more and more used for treatment of oligometastatic mediastinal lymph nodes. The objective of this single-centre study was to evaluate its efficacy in patients with either a locoregional recurrence of a pulmonary or oesophageal cancer or with distant metastases of extrathoracic tumours., Patients and Methods: Patients with oligometastatic mediastinal lymph nodes treated with CyberKnife from June 2010 to September 2020 were screened. The primary endpoint was to assess local progression free survival and induced toxicity. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. The delay before introduction of systemic treatment in the subgroup of patients who did not receive systemic therapy for previous progression was also evaluated., Results: Fifty patients were included: 15 with a locoregional progression of a thoracic primary tumour (87% pulmonary) and 35 with mediastinal metastasis of especially renal tumour (29%). Median follow-up was 27 months (6-110 months). Local progression free survival at 6, 12 and 18 months was respectively 94, 88 and 72%. The rate of local progression was significantly lower in patients who received 36Gy in six fractions (66% of the cohort) versus other treatment schemes. Two grade 1 acute oesophagitis and one late grade 2 pulmonary fibrosis were described. Overall survival at 12, 18 and 24 months was respectively 94, 85 and 82%. Median progression free survival was 13 months. Twenty-one patients were treated by stereotactic body irradiation alone without previous history of systemic treatment. Among this subgroup, 11 patients (52%) received a systemic treatment following stereotactic body radiotherapy with a median introduction time of 17 months (5-52 months) and 24% did not progress., Conclusion: Stereotactic body irradiation as treatment of oligometastatic mediastinal lymph nodes is a well-tolerated targeted irradiation that leads to a high control rate and delay the introduction of systemic therapy in selected patients., (Copyright © 2023 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence regarding the analgesic effect of distraction through immersion in virtual reality (VR) for care-induced pain has been documented in several phase 2 trials, but comparison with standard treatments in large, randomized studies is needed., Objective: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel VR therapy solution for distraction in the context of bone marrow biopsy., Methods: Bliss is a VR software with 4 imaginary interactive environments in 3 dimensions with binaural sound (head-mounted display). Efficacy regarding pain intensity was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS; score from 0 to 10) immediately after the biopsy. Secondary end points were anxiety and tolerance. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed., Results: Overall, 126 patients with previously documented untreated or suspected malignant hemopathy between September 6, 2018, and May 18, 2020, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain prevention with a mixture of nitrous oxide/oxygen (MEOPA; n=63) or VR (n=63) before and during the bone marrow biopsy. We excluded 8 patients from the final analysis (3 in the MEOPA group and 5 in the VR group). All patients received local anesthesia (lidocaine) before biopsy. Follow-up was limited to 1 month after the biopsy. Participants' median age was 65.5 (range 18-87) years, and 54.2% (64/118) of patients were male. The average pain intensity was 3.5 (SD 2.6, 95% CI -1.6 to 8.6) for the MEOPA group and 3.0 (SD 2.4, 95% CI -1.7 to 7.7) for the VR group, without any significant differences in age, sex, center, and hemopathy (P=.26). Concerning anxiety, 67.5% (79/117; fear of pain questionnaire) of the patients were afraid before the biopsy, and anxiety scores were moderate to very high in 26.3% (30/114; revised Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire) of the patients before the biopsy and 9.0% (10/114) after the biopsy for all patients, without a significant difference between the 2 groups (P=.83). Immersion in VR was well tolerated by the majority (54/57, 95%) of patients in the VR group., Conclusions: The intensity of pain did not significantly differ between both arms. VR was well tolerated, and the satisfaction of patients, nurses, and physicians was very high. VR could be an alternative treatment in case of contraindication or intolerance to MEOPA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03483194; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03483194., (©Katell Le Du, Anne-Lise Septans, Frédéric Maloisel, Hélène Vanquaethem, Anna Schmitt, Marielle Le Goff, Aline Clavert, Marie Zinger, Hugues Bourgeois, Olivier Dupuis, Fabrice Denis, Stéphane Bouchard. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 15.02.2023.)

Background: Anti-angiogenic rechallenge with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is effective in recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC); however, data are limited on tyrosine kinase inhibitors after progression on maintenance bevacizumab., Methods: In the randomized phase II TAPAZ trial, patients with rOC during the first year of bevacizumab maintenance therapy were assigned 2:1 to either weekly paclitaxel 65 mg/m 2 plus pazopanib 600-800 mg daily or standard weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 . The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate., Results: Overall, 116 patients were randomized and treated: 79 with combination therapy and 37 with single-agent paclitaxel. Median follow-up was 13.1 months. There was no difference between treatment arms in 4-month PFS rate (61% [95% CI, 51-73%] with the combination versus 68% [95% CI, 54-85%] with paclitaxel alone), median PFS (4.9 [95% CI, 4.1-6.1] versus 5.8 [95% CI, 4.8-7.4] months, respectively) or median overall survival (13.6 versus 12.9 months, respectively). The combination was associated with more grade 3/4 toxicities (87% versus 70%, respectively) and toxicity-related paclitaxel discontinuations (22% versus 11%). Pazopanib was discontinued for toxicity in 44% of patients, most commonly for gastrointestinal and vascular events. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the combination arm (pulmonary embolism and gastrointestinal perforation). At month 4, patient-reported outcomes deteriorated from baseline in the combination arm, particularly for abdominal/gastrointestinal symptoms, which showed a clinically important difference versus paclitaxel alone., Conclusions: In rOC progressing during maintenance bevacizumab, adding pazopanib to paclitaxel did not improve efficacy, increased toxicity, and compromised chemotherapy delivery., Clinicaltrials: govregistration:NCT02383251., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

What Is This Summary About?: This is a plain language summary of an article originally published in The New England Journal of Medicine . It is about initial results (collected in October 2019) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study (a clinical trial), which looked at avelumab maintenance treatment in people with advanced urothelial cancer. Urothelial cancer is the most common type of bladder cancer. People with advanced urothelial cancer often receive chemotherapy. If this is the first treatment people with advanced disease are given, it is called first-line treatment. If the cancer stops growing or shrinks with first-line chemotherapy, people can be given different treatment to try to prevent the cancer from growing again. This is called maintenance treatment. It may help people live longer., What Happened in the Javelin Bladder 100 Study?: In the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study, researchers wanted to find out if maintenance treatment with avelumab would help people with advanced urothelial cancer live longer. Avelumab is a type of medicine called immunotherapy. Immunotherapy helps the body's immune system fight cancer. 700 people took part in the study. To take part, they must have already been treated with first-line chemotherapy. Also, their cancer must have shrunk or not grown with this treatment. They were then treated with either avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Best supportive care means treatments that help improve symptoms and quality of life. These treatments do not affect the cancer directly and can include medicines to relieve pain., What Were the Results?: Researchers found that people treated with avelumab maintenance treatment plus best supportive care lived, on average, 7 months longer than people who received best supportive care alone. People treated with avelumab had more side effects than those not treated with avelumab, but most were not severe. Common side effects with avelumab included persistent tiredness, itchy skin, urinary tract infection, and diarrhea., What Do the Results of the Study Mean?: Results from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study support the use of avelumab as maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial cancer whose cancer has shrunk or not grown with first-line chemotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02603432.

Purpose: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib., Experimental Design: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR., Results: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634-1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415-0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300-0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174-0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome., Conclusions: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) is a rare type of aggressive lymphoma typically affecting young female patients. The first-line standard of care remains debated. We performed a large multicenter retrospective study in 25 centers in France and Belgium to describe PMBL patient outcomes after first-line treatment in real-life settings. A total of 313 patients were enrolled and received rituximab (R) plus ACVBP (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone) (n = 180) or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) delivered every 14 days (R-CHOP14, n = 76) or 21 days (R-CHOP21, n = 57) and consolidation strategies in modalities that varied according to time and institution, mainly guided by positron emission tomography. Consolidation autologous stem cell transplantation was performed for 46 (25.6%), 24 (31.6%), and 1 (1.8%) patient in the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 groups, respectively (P < .001); only 17 (5.4%) patients received mediastinal radiotherapy. The end-of-treatment complete metabolic response rates were 86.3%, 86.8%, and 76.6% (P = .23) in the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 groups. The median follow-up was 44 months, and the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 three-year progression-free survival probabilities were 89.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.8-94.2), 89.4% (95% CI, 82.7-96.6), and 74.7% (95% CI, 64-87.1) (P = .018). A baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) ≥360 cm3 was associated with a lower progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.05-4.53). Excess febrile neutropenia (24.4% vs 5.3% vs 5.3%; P < .001) and mucositis (22.8% vs 3.9% vs 1.8%; P < .001) were observed with R-ACVBP compared with the R-CHOP regimens. Patients with PMBL treated with dose-dense immunochemotherapy without radiotherapy have excellent outcomes. R-ACVBP acute toxicity was higher than that of R-CHOP14. Our data confirmed the prognostic importance of baseline TMTV., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT 3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT 3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK 1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK 1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK 1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)., Materials and Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%., Results: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant., Conclusion: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA., Implications for Practice: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK 1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK 1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK 1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care., (© 2021 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd)-based regimens are among the standards of care in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. The oral proteasome inhibitor ixazomib is suitable for continuous dosing, with predictable, manageable toxicities. In the double-blind, placebo-controlled TOURMALINE-MM2 trial, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients were randomized to ixazomib 4 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 354) plus Rd. After 18 cycles, dexamethasone was discontinued and treatment was continued using reduced-dose ixazomib (3 mg) and lenalidomide (10 mg) until progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS was 35.3 vs 21.8 months with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.830; 95% confidence interval, 0.676-1.018; P = .073; median follow-up, 53.3 and 55.8 months). Complete (26% vs 14%; odds ratio [OR], 2.10; P < .001) and ≥ very good partial response (63% vs 48%; OR, 1.87; P < .001) rates were higher with ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd. In a prespecified high-risk cytogenetics subgroup, median PFS was 23.8 vs 18.0 months (HR, 0.690; P = .019). Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1/2. With ixazomib-Rd vs placebo-Rd, 88% vs 81% of patients experienced grade ≥3 TEAEs, 66% vs 62% serious TEAEs, and 35% vs 27% TEAEs resulting in regimen discontinuation; 8% vs 6% died on study. Addition of ixazomib to Rd was tolerable with no new safety signals and led to a clinically meaningful PFS benefit of 13.5 months. Ixazomib-Rd is a feasible option for certain patients who can benefit from an all-oral triplet combination. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01850524., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Results from a phase 2 trial of the TPEx chemotherapy regimen (docetaxel-platinum-cetuximab) showed promising results, with a median overall survival of 14·0 months in first-line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the TPEx regimen with the standard of care EXTREME regimen (platinum-fluorouracil-cetuximab) in this setting., Methods: This was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, done in 68 centres (cancer centres, university and general hospitals, and private clinics) in France, Spain, and Germany. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC unsuitable for curative treatment; had at least one measurable lesion according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or less. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using the TenAlea website by investigators or delegated clinical research associates to the TPEx regimen or the EXTREME regimen, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, previous cetuximab treatment, and country. The TPEx regimen consisted of docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 , both intravenously on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (intravenously 400 mg/m 2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m 2 weekly subsequently). Four cycles were repeated every 21 days with systematic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support at each cycle. In case of disease control after four cycles, intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m 2 was continued every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The EXTREME regimen consisted of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m 2 on day 1-4, cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m 2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and 250 mg/m 2 weekly subsequently) all delivered intravenously. Six cycles were delivered every 21 days followed by weekly 250 mg/m 2 cetuximab as maintenance therapy in case of disease control. G-CSF support was not mandatory per the protocol in the EXTREME regimen. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of chemotherapy or cetuximab. Enrolment is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268695., Findings: Between Oct 10, 2014, and Nov 29, 2017, 541 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment regimens (271 to TPEx, 270 to EXTREME). Two patients in the TPEx group had major deviations in consent forms and were not included in the final analysis. Median follow-up was 34·4 months (IQR 26·6-44·8) in the TPEx group and 30·2 months (25·5-45·3) in the EXTREME group. At data cutoff, 209 patients had died in the TPEx group and 218 had died in the EXTREME group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 14·5 months [95% CI 12·5-15·7] in the TPEx group and 13·4 months [12·2-15·4] in the EXTREME group; hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·23). 214 (81%) of 263 patients in the TPEx group versus 246 (93%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group had grade 3 or worse adverse events during chemotherapy (p<0·0001). In the TPEx group, 118 (45%) of 263 patients had at least one serious adverse event versus 143 (54%) of 265 patients in the EXTREME group. 16 patients in the TPEx group and 21 in the EXTREME group died in association with adverse events, including seven patients in each group who had fatal infections (including febrile neutropenia). Eight deaths in the TPEx group and 11 deaths in the EXTREME group were assessed as treatment related, most frequently sepsis or septic shock (four in each treatment group)., Interpretation: Although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, with no significant improvement in overall survival with TPEx versus EXTREME, the TPEx regimen had a favourable safety profile. The TPEx regimen could provide an alternative to standard of care with the EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, especially for those who might not be good candidates for up-front pembrolizumab treatment., Funding: Merck Santé and Chugai Pharma., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The noninterventional, prospective NIMES-ROC phase IV study (NCT02825420) evaluated trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in real-life clinical practice., Patients and Methods: Eligible participants included adults with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PS-ROC) who had received one or more cycles of trabectedin/PLD before inclusion according to the marketing authorization. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to investigator criteria., Results: Two hundred eighteen patients from five European countries were evaluated, 72.5% of whom were pretreated with at least two prior chemotherapy lines and received a median of six cycles of trabectedin/PLD (range: 1-24). Median PFS was 9.46 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9-10.9), and median overall survival (OS) was 23.56 months (95% CI, 18.1-34.1). Patients not pretreated with an antiangiogenic drug obtained larger median PFS (p < .007) and OS (p < .048), largely owning to differences between the two populations. Twenty-four patients (11.0%) had a complete response, and 57 patients (26.1%) achieved a partial response for an objective response rate (ORR) of 37.2%. Fifty-nine patients (27.1%) had disease stabilization for a disease control rate of 64.2%. No statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, or ORR was observed by BRCA1/2 status and platinum sensitivity. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (30.3%), anemia (6.4%), thrombocytopenia (5.5%), and asthenia (5.0%). No deaths attributed to treatment-related AEs or unexpected AEs occurred., Conclusion: The combination of trabectedin/PLD represents a clinically meaningful and safe option for patients with PS-ROC regardless of prior treatment with an antiangiogenic drug, being comparable with previously observed outcomes in selected and less pretreated patients from clinical trials., Implications for Practice: This noninterventional, prospective study, conducted in 57 reference sites across Europe, consistently confirmed that trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in routine clinical practice represents a clinically meaningful and safe option for women with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Although the study population represented a heterogeneous, older, and more pretreated population than those in prospective clinical trials, the combination of trabectedin plus PLD induced comparable clinical benefits, with a similar and manageable safety profile. Overall, these findings show that trabectedin in combination with PLD maintains antitumor activity when administered to heavily pretreated patients in real-life clinical practice., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Objective: To date, no study has evaluated the detection rate of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in cause-of-death records in Europe. Our objectives were to compare the number of deaths attributable to HNSCC from two national databases in France and to identify factors associated with under-reporting of HNSCC in cause-of-death records., Methods: The national hospital discharge database and the national underlying cause-of-death records were compared for all HNSCC-attributable deaths in adult patients from 2008 to 2012 in France. Factors associated with under-reporting of HNSCC in cause-of-death records were assessed using multivariate Poisson regression., Results: A total of 41,503 in-hospital deaths were attributable to HNSCC as compared to 25,647 deaths reported in national UCoD records (a detection rate of 62%). Demographics at death were similar in both databases with respect to gender (83% men), age (54% premature deaths at 25-64 years), and geographic distribution. In multivariate Poisson regression, under-reporting of HNSCC in cause-of-death records significantly increased in 2012 compared to 2010 (+7%) and was independently associated with a primary HNSCC site other than the larynx, a former primary or second synchronous cancer other than HNSCC, distant metastasis, palliative care, and death in hospitals other than comprehensive cancer care centers. The main study results were robust in a sensitivity analysis which also took into account deaths outside hospital (overall, 51,129 HNSCC-attributable deaths; a detection rate of 50%). For the year 2012, the age-standardized mortality rate for HNSCC derived from underlying cause-of-death records was less than half that derived from hospital discharge summaries (14.7 compared to 34.1 per 100,000 for men and 2.7 compared to 6.2 per 100,000 for women)., Conclusion: HNSCC is largely under-reported in cause-of-death records. This study documents the value of national hospital discharge databases as a complement to death certificates for ascertaining cancer deaths., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Dr Caroline Even reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Innate Pharma, Merck and co, and Merck Serrono, outside and unrelated to the submitted work; Luis Sagaon-Teyssier was an employee of Translational Health Economics Network (THEN); Prof Françoise Huguet reports personal fees from BMS and Merck Serrono, outside and unrelated to the submitted work; Dr Michaël Schwarzinger was an employee of Translational Health Economics Network (THEN), Paris, France, that received a research grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) France for the EPICORL study as well as research grants from Abbvie, Gilead and Novartis, outside and unrelated to the submitted work. Other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no patents, products in development, or marketed products to declare.

Objectives: In 2016, the European Society of Gynecology Oncology (ESGO) published indicators defining the quality of surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer. The objective of the study was to assess the quality of ovarian cancer patient management in regional centers authorized for gynecological cancer, based on the ESGO list of quality indicators., Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1 to June 30, 2016. The following quality indicators 1 "rate of complete surgical resection", 4 "center participating in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology", 5 "treatment planned and reviewed at a multidisciplinary team meeting", 6 "required preoperative workup", 8 "minimum required elements in operative reports" and 9 "minimum required elements in pathology reports" were selected., Results: 91 patients were evaluated in 16 centers. The required preoperative workup was incomplete in 25% of cases. Treatment was not planned at a multidisciplinary team meeting for 24%. An evaluation score of peritoneal involvement was included in 40% of the operative reports and the quality of surgical resection was reported in 72%. Primary surgery was most often performed in a peripheral hospital (48%), interval surgery in a private center (37%), and closure surgery in a regional cancer center (43%). No institution respected the six quality indicators evaluated. One regional cancer center respected five items and two private centers did not respect any., Conclusion: Whilst the ESGO quality indicators provide objective, validated and evaluable support which centers can use to improve quality of care, we observed heterogeneous practices amongst the centers evaluated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This open-label phase 2 study (CONTRALTO) assessed the safety and efficacy of BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) plus rituximab (R), and VEN plus bendamustine (B) and R, vs B + R (BR) alone in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma. Patients in the chemotherapy-free arm (arm A: VEN + R) received VEN 800 mg/d plus R 375 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. After a safety run-in with VEN 600 mg, patients in the chemotherapy-containing cohort were randomized to either VEN + BR (arm B; VEN 800 mg/d for 1 year + 6 cycles of BR [B 90 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 and R 375 mg/m2 on day 1]) or 6 cycles of BR (arm C). Overall, 163 patients were analyzed (9 in the safety run-in and 52, 51, and 51 in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Complete metabolic/complete response rates were 17% (arm A), 75% (arm B), and 69% (arm C). Of patients in arm B, only 61% received ≥90% of the planned B dose vs 96% of patients in arm C. More frequent hematologic toxicity resulted in more reduced dosing/treatment discontinuation in arm B vs arm C. Rates of grade 3/4 adverse events were 51.9%, 93.9%, and 60.0% in arms A, B, and C, respectively. VEN + BR led to increased toxicity and lower dose intensity of BR than in arm C, but efficacy was similar. Optimizing dose and schedule to maintain BR dose intensity may improve efficacy and tolerability of VEN + BR, while VEN + R data warrant further study. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02187861., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Objective: Over recent decades, supportive care and patient quality of life, advocated by dedicated guidelines, have become a core focus of the concept of integrative medicine. The Calista 2 survey was conducted in France between September 2016 and October 2017 among oncologists and their patients being treated for early breast cancer, adjuvant colorectal cancer or advanced lung cancer. The present analysis sought to ascertain, understand and rank the expectations of cancer patients with regard to supportive care., Methods: Data were collected from 467 questionnaires from patients recruited by 82 oncologists. Inclusion criteria were patients already on treatment for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or lung cancer. Most supportive care facilities were available at the point of care., Results: Physicians were mainly seen to offer management of adverse events (81%), and pain (72%), psychological support (56%), and advice on diet/nutrition (49%). Patient uptake of supportive care related essentially to management of adverse events (72%) and pain (61%), diet/nutrition (34%), and self-image improvement techniques (31%). The main unmet needs voiced by patients were information on complementary medicines (28%), management of fatigue (27%), and relaxation techniques (24%)., Conclusion: Supportive care was essentially seen to satisfy patient requirements with regard to the management of adverse events and pain. However, patients highlighted the need for a wider access to fatigue management and information on complementary medicine and relaxation techniques., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aims: The Bretagne-Pays de la Loire cancer observatory, an oncology network created by the French Ministry of Health, is specifically dedicated to assess the use of new targeted anticancer therapies in routine practice. In line with the French National Cancer III program, our cancer network set up a real-life cohort, which is independent of the pharmaceutical industry, for patients with colorectal cancer to monitor patient safety and quality of care and promote pharmacovigilance., Materials and Methods: Panitumumab monotherapy was assessed in 243 patients with wild-type Kirsten rat sarcoma who were treated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between July 2008 and December 2010 after prior chemotherapy using oxaliplatine and irinotecan. This was a post-European medicine agency marketing (EMA-M) study Results: This study shed light on the best practices, strategic adaptations, clinical results (treatment objective responses, 13%; progression free survival, 2.99 months [2.73-3.15]; and overall survival, 6.8 months [5.49-8.38]) as well as expected or unexpected (grade 3 or 4: 11.5%) secondary effects in the phase IV panitumumab treatment of mCRC., Conclusion: Our results are similar to those by Amado whose phase III study led to obtaining EMA-M for panitumumab and tend to confirm the antitumor activity of this antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the treatment of mCRC. In addition, our results opened avenues to further assessment of panitumumab use as monotherapy as well as its benefit-risk ratio while taking into account the patients' general and clinical characteristics. In 2012, the French National Authority for Health appended these data to the panitumumab transparency committee report.

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance., Methods: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety., Results: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively., Conclusions: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Patients and Methods: A post hoc analysis of all pathologic reports from patients with stage III CC included in the IDEA France phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00958737) investigating the duration of adjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or capecitabine and oxaliplatin therapy (3 v 6 months) was performed. The primary objective was to determine the prognostic impact of TD on disease-free survival (DFS). The effect of the addition of TD to LNM count on pN restaging was also evaluated. A multivariable analysis was performed to establish the association between TD and DFS., Results: Of 1,942 patients, 184 (9.5%) had TDs. The pN1a/b and pN1c populations showed similar DFS. TD-positive patients had worse prognosis compared with TD-negative patients, with 3-year DFS rates of 65.6% (95% CI, 58.0% to 72.1%) and 74.7% (95% CI, 72.6% to 76.7%; P = .0079), respectively. On multivariable analysis, TDs were associated with a higher risk of recurrence or death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .0201). Other adverse factors included pT4 and/or pN2 disease (HR, 2.21; P < .001), the 3 months of adjuvant treatment (HR, 1.29; P = .0029), tumor obstruction (HR, 1.28; P = .0233), and male sex (HR, 1.24; P = .0151). Patients restaged as having pN2 disease (n = 35, 2.3%) had similar DFS as patients initially classified as pN2., Conclusion: The presence of TDs is an independent prognostic factor for DFS in patients with stage III CC. The addition of TD to LNM may help to better define the duration of adjuvant therapy.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Lenalidomide maintenance therapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) responding to induction chemotherapy in the phase 3 REMARC study. This subpopulation analysis assessed the impact of lenalidomide maintenance and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Global health status (GHS), and physical functioning and fatigue subscales were evaluated in patients who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-C30 v3.0. The impact of TEAEs classified post hoc as subjective (patients can feel) or observable (only measurable by physicians) on dose reductions and discontinuations was assessed. Among 457 patients (lenalidomide, n = 229; placebo, n = 228), mean (standard deviation) GHS was similar between treatment arms [68·2 (20·7) Versus 72·0 (17·8)] at randomisation and remained similar during maintenance. Patients receiving lenalidomide experienced no meaningful changes in GHS, physical functioning, or fatigue. Observable TEAEs were more common (81·1% Versus 66·3%) and more likely to lead to dose reductions, than subjective TEAEs in both arms. PFS was superior in the lenalidomide arm regardless of dose reduction. Lenalidomide maintenance prolonged PFS and did not negatively impact HRQOL in patients with DLBCL despite TEAEs being more common, when compared with placebo., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The treatment landscape in metastatic renal cell carcinoma has changed fundamentally over the last decade by the development of antiangiogenic agents, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and immunotherapy. Outside of the context of a clinical trial, the treatments are used sequentially. We describe results under real-life conditions of a sequential treatment strategy, before the era of immunotherapy. All patients were treated according to their prognostic score (either Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium) for advanced renal cell carcinoma. A treatment strategy involving 1 to 4 lines was determined including a rechallenge criterion for the repeat use of a treatment class. Three hundred forty-four patients were included over 3 years. Overall survival was 57 months in patients with good or intermediate prognosis and 19 months in patients with poor prognosis. In the former group, the proportions of patients treated with 2 to 4 treatment lines were 70%, 38% and 16%, respectively. The best objective response rates for lines 1 to 4 were 46%, 36%, 16% and 17%, respectively. Grade III/IV toxicity did not appear to be cumulative. The recommended strategy was followed in 68% of patients. A large proportion of patients with good or intermediate prognosis who progress after two lines of treatment still have a performance status good enough to receive a systemic treatment, which justifies such a strategy. Overall survival of patients with good and intermediate prognosis was long, suggesting a benefit from the applied approach. These results might be used as selection criterion for the treatment of patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors., (© 2019 UICC.)

Background: Cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) compared with everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after prior antiangiogenic therapy in the phase III METEOR trial (NCT01865747). Limited data are available on the use of targeted therapies in older patients with advanced RCC., Methods: Efficacy and safety in METEOR were retrospectively analysed for three age subgroups: <65 (n = 394), 65-74 (n = 201) and ≥75 years (n = 63)., Results: PFS, OS and ORR were improved with cabozantinib compared with everolimus in all age subgroups. The PFS hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.68), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.77) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.18-0.79) for <65, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively, and the OS HRs were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.54-0.95), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44-0.99) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.28-1.14). The ORR for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 15% vs 5%, 21% vs 2% and 19% vs 0%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in PFS or OS with age as a categorical or continuous variable. Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent across subgroups, although fatigue, hypertension and hyponatraemia occurred more frequently in older patients treated with cabozantinib. Dose reductions to manage AEs were more frequent in patients receiving cabozantinib than in those receiving everolimus. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuation due to AEs were more frequent in older patients in both treatment groups., Conclusions: Cabozantinib improved PFS, OS and ORR compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced RCC, irrespective of age group, supporting use in all age categories. Proactive dose modification and supportive care may help to mitigate AEs in older patients while maintaining efficacy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement F.D. certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (e.g. employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony royalties or patents filed, received or pending), are the following: F.D. received research grant support from Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen, and Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region, outside the submitted work. R.J.M. served in a consultancy or advisory role for Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Genentech/Roche, Eisai and Exelixis and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Eisai, Exelixis and Novartis. K.C. received honoraria from Roche, served in a consultancy or advisory role for Roche and Novartis and received support for travel and accommodation from Roche and Amgen. S.N. received honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Ipsen and Eusa Pharma, outside the submitted work. I.C. and A.C. are employees of Exelixis. B.E. received grant support and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Ipsen and Eusa. S.P. received honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Medivation and Novartis, served in a consultancy or advisory role for Aveo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Myriad Pharmaceuticals, Novartis and Pfizer and received research funding from Medivation. T.P. served in a consultancy or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Novartis, and received research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. T.K.C. served in a consultancy or advisory role for Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Laboratories, Corvus, Ipsen, UpToDate, NCCN and Analysis Group, received research funding (institutional and personal) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Ipsen, Tracon, Genentech, Roche, Roche Products Limited, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Corvus, Calithera, Analysis Group and Takeda, received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Alexion, Sanofi/Aventis, Bayer, BMS, Cerulean, Eisai, Foundation Medicine Inc., Exelixis, Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Peloton, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Prometheus Laboratories, Corvus, Ipsen, UpToDate, NCCN, Analysis Group, NCCN, Michael J. Hennessy (MJH) Associates, Inc (Healthcare Communications Company with several brands such as OncLive and PER), Lpath, Kidney Cancer journal, Clinical Care Options, PlatformQ, Navinata Healthcare, Harborside Press, American Society of Medical Oncology, NEJM, Lancet Oncology and Heron Therapeutics and has received travel, accommodations and expenses in relation to consulting and advisory roles or honoraria; T.K.C.'s institution (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) may have received additional independent funding or royalties from drug companies potentially involved in research around the subject matter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this prospective phase 2 trial, we assessed the efficacy of trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with HER2-positive CTC., Methods: Main inclusion criteria for screening were as follows: women with HER2-negative MBC treated with ≥ 2 prior lines of chemotherapy and measurable disease. CTC with a HER2/CEP17 ratio of ≥ 2.2 by fluorescent in situ hybridization (CellSearch) were considered to be HER2-amplified (HER2 amp ). Patients with ≥ 1 HER2 amp CTC were eligible for the treatment phase (T-DM1 monotherapy). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate., Results: In 154 screened patients, ≥ 1 and ≥ 5 CTC/7.5 ml of blood were detected in N = 118 (78.7%) and N = 86 (57.3%) patients, respectively. ≥1 HER2 amp CTC was found in 14 patients (9.1% of patients with ≥ 1 CTC/7.5 ml). Among 11 patients treated with T-DM1, one achieved a confirmed partial response. Four patients had a stable disease as best response. Median PFS was 4.8 months while median OS was 9.5 months., Conclusions: CTC with HER2 amplification can be detected in a limited subset of HER2-negative MBC patients. Treatment with T-DM1 achieved a partial response in only one patient., Trial Registration: NCT01975142, Registered 03 November 2013.

Background: The BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax has shown activity in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), but its efficacy in combination with other agents in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions is not known., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we investigated fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions. Patients with a score of greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (scores range from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more impaired function of organ systems) or a calculated creatinine clearance of less than 70 ml per minute were randomly assigned to receive venetoclax-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The safety of each regimen was also evaluated., Results: In total, 432 patients (median age, 72 years; median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 66.4 ml per minute) underwent randomization, with 216 assigned to each group. After a median follow-up of 28.1 months, 30 primary end-point events (disease progression or death) had occurred in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 77 had occurred in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.53; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 24 months was significantly higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group than in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group: 88.2% (95% CI, 83.7 to 92.6) as compared with 64.1% (95% CI, 57.4 to 70.8). This benefit was also observed in patients with TP53 deletion, mutation, or both and in patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 52.8% of patients in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and in 48.1% of patients in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group, and grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 17.5% and 15.0%, respectively. All-cause mortality was 9.3% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 7.9% in the chlorambucil-obinutuzumab group. These differences were not significant., Conclusions: Among patients with untreated CLL and coexisting conditions, venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with longer progression-free survival than chlorambucil-obinutuzumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02242942.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Prognostic models based on individual patient characteristics can improve treatment decisions and outcome in the future. In many (radiomic) studies, small size and heterogeneity of datasets is a challenge that often limits performance and potential clinical applicability of these models. The current study is example of a retrospective multi-centric study with challenges and caveats. To highlight common issues and emphasize potential pitfalls, we aimed for an extensive analysis of these multi-center pre-treatment datasets, with an additional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan acquired during treatment., Methods: The dataset consisted of 138 stage II-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from four different cohorts acquired from three different institutes. The differences between the cohorts were compared in terms of clinical characteristics and using the so-called 'cohort differences model' approach. Moreover, the potential prognostic performances for overall survival of radiomic features extracted from CT or FDG-PET, or relative or absolute differences between the scans at the two time points, were assessed using the LASSO regression method. Furthermore, the performances of five different classifiers were evaluated for all image sets., Results: The individual cohorts substantially differed in terms of patient characteristics. Moreover, the cohort differences model indicated statistically significant differences between the cohorts. Neither LASSO nor any of the tested classifiers resulted in a clinical relevant prognostic model that could be validated on the available datasets., Conclusion: The results imply that the study might have been influenced by a limited sample size, heterogeneous patient characteristics, and inconsistent imaging parameters. No prognostic performance of FDG-PET or CT based radiomics models can be reported. This study highlights the necessity of extensive evaluations of cohorts and of validation datasets, especially in retrospective multi-centric datasets., Competing Interests: Author RL is CTO and shareholder of Oncoradiomics SA and co-inventor of a patent related to Radiomics. Author PL is member of the advisory board, shareholder of Oncoradiomics SA and co-inventor of two licenced & approved patents on Radiomics.

Introduction: Patients with cervical lymphadenopathy of unknown primary carcinoma (CUP) usually undergo neck dissection and irradiation. There is an ongoing controversy regarding the extent of nodal and mucosal volumes to be irradiated. We assessed outcomes after bilateral or unilateral nodal irradiation., Methods: This retrospective multicentre study included patients with CUP and squamous cellular carcinoma who underwent radiotherapy (RT) between 2000 and 2015., Results: Of 350 patients, 74.5% had unilateral disease and 25.5% had bilateral disease. Of 297 patients with available data on disease and irradiation sides, 61 (20.5%) patients had unilateral disease and unilateral irradiation, 155 (52.2%), unilateral disease and bilateral irradiation and 81 (27.3%), bilateral disease and bilateral irradiation. Thirty-four (9.7%) and 217 (62.0%) patients received neoadjuvant and/or concomitant chemotherapy, respectively. Median follow-up was 37 months. Three-year local, regional, locoregional failure rates and CUP-specific survival were 5.6%, 11.7%, 15.0% and 84.7%, respectively. In patients with unilateral disease, the 3-year cumulative incidence of regional/local relapse was 7.7%/4.3% after bilateral irradiation versus 16.9%/11.1% after unilateral irradiation (hazard ratio = 0.56/0.61, p = 0.17/0.32). The cumulative incidence of CUP-specific deaths was 9.2% after bilateral irradiation and 15.5% after unilateral irradiation (p = 0.92). In multivariate analysis, mucosal irradiation was associated with better local control, whereas no neck dissection, ≥N2b and interruption of RT for more than 4 days were associated with poorer regional control. Toxicity was higher after bilateral irradiation (p < 0.05). No positron-emission tomography-computed tomography, largest node diameter, ≥N2b, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interruption of RT were associated with poorer cause-specific survival., Conclusion: Bilateral nodal irradiation yielded non-significant better nodal and mucosal control rates but was associated with higher rates of severe toxicity., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim of the Study: The optimal therapeutic strategy in patients with rectal cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases remains unknown. We evaluated the efficacy of FOLFIRINOX induction therapy in this setting., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients received at least 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX. The primary end-point was the 4-month disease control (4 m DC) rate. Tumour responses were centrally reviewed and assessed by computed tomography scan for metastases (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours criteria) and magnetic resonance imaging for rectal tumorus. With a Simon 2-stage design and a targeted (H1) 4 m DC > 75%, 65 patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2015: male, 78%; median age, 61 years; performance status, 0-1, 98%; liver metastases, 92%; ≥2 metastatic sites, 63%., Results: Fifty-six (85%) of the 65 patients received the 8 planned FOLFIRINOX cycles. The primary objective was achieved (4 m DC rate: 94%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.3-97.8). Primary tumour symptoms decreased from 72% at baseline to 10% at 4 months. Response rate was 86%, and a >70% primary tumour volume decrease was seen in 63% of patients. Forty-four patients (68%) had at least one grade 3 side-effect; no toxic deaths occurred. Median follow-up was 35.0 months (95% CI, 31.3-43.7). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.9 m (95% CI, 8.8-12.9) and 33.4 m (95% CI, 22.6-38.2), respectively., Conclusion: Upfront FOLFIRINOX is feasible and allows good local and distant control. It therefore offers the opportunity to choose the best therapeutic strategy for each patient and to personalise treatment according to the local and distant efficacy results of this induction step., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01674309., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Reduction of adjuvant treatment duration may decrease toxicities without loss of efficacy in stage III colon cancer. This could offer clear advantages to patients and health care providers. Methods In International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) France, as part of the IDEA international collaboration, patient with colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to 3 and 6 months of modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6: infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) by physician choice. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), and analyses were descriptive. Results A total of 2,010 eligible patients received either 3 or 6 months of chemotherapy (modified intention-to-treat population); 2,000 (99%) had stage III colon cancer (N1: 75%, N2: 25%); 1,809 (90%) received mFOLFOX6, and 201 (10%) received CAPOX. The median age was 64 years, and the median follow-up time was 4.3 years. Overall, 94% (3 months) and 78% (6 months) of patients completed treatment (fluoropyrimidines ± oxaliplatin). Maximal grade 2 and 3 neuropathy rates were 28% and 8% in the 3-month arm and 41% and 25% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). Final rates of residual neuropathy greater than grade 1 were 3% in the 3-month arm and 7% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). There were 578 DFS events: 314 and 264 in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively. The 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.46; P = .0112). In the 3 and 6-month arms, respectively, for patients who received mFOLFOX6, the 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51); for the T4 and/or N2 population, they were 58% and 66% (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.82); and for the T1-3N1 population, they were 81% and 83% (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.49). Conclusion IDEA France, in which 90% of patients received mFOLFOX6, shows superiority of 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with 3 months, especially in the T4 and/or N2 subgroups. These results should be considered alongside the international IDEA collaboration data.

Tandem stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an option for high-risk relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) patients. We evaluated the tolerance/efficacy of double autologous or autologous SCT (ASCT) followed by allogenic SCT (alloSCT) in 120 HL patients prospectively registered on a French nationwide database. Median age was 26 (14-56) years. Complete remission rate was 60%, including 33% after a single line, and another 27% after two or more salvage regimens. Partial response rate was 32%, and 8% suffered treatment failure. Overall, 115 (96%) patients underwent a first ASCT, and 73 (61%) had a tandem SCT, including alloSCT in 44 (60%) and ASCT in 29 (40%). The median follow-up was 43 months (4.8-73.7 months). The two-year progression-free survival rate for the whole population and for patients receiving tandem transplant was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46-65%) and 71% (95% CI: 49-84%), respectively. Among tandem transplants, we observed 20 deaths (17%), 10 of which were transplant-related (6 alloSCT and 4 ASCT). We suggest that tandem SCT is efficient in high-risk relapsed/refractory HL patients, although transplant-related mortality remains high. The benefit of tandem SCT should be balanced with the efficacy of Brentuximab vedotin-based post-transplant consolidative strategies in high-risk relapsed/refractory HL patients., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is no standard treatment after progression on second-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We compared vinflunine with physician's choice of alkylating agent (AA) for patients with heavily pretreated MBC., Patients and Methods: In this open-label phase III trial, patients with MBC were included if they had received at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC and had received anthracycline, taxane, antimetabolite and vinca alkaloid therapy. Patients were no longer candidates for these chemotherapies because of resistance and/or intolerance. Patients were randomised to either vinflunine 280 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks (q3w) or AA monotherapy q3w. Stratification factors were performance status, number of prior chemotherapy lines for MBC, disease measurability and study site. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 594 patients were randomised (298 to vinflunine, 296 to AA). There was no difference between treatment arms in OS (hazard ratio 1.04, P = 0.67; median 9.1 months for vinflunine versus 9.3 months for AA), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.94, P = 0.49; median 2.5 versus 1.9 months, respectively) or overall response rate (6% versus 4%, respectively). However, the disease control rate was significantly higher with vinflunine than AA (44% versus 35%, respectively; P = 0.04). The most common adverse events (any grade) were haematological and gastrointestinal disorders and asthenia in both arms. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (19% versus 11% with vinflunine versus AA, respectively) and asthenia (10% versus 4%)., Conclusions: Vinflunine 280 mg/m2 q3w did not improve OS compared with the physician's choice of AA as third- or later-line therapy for MBC. Vinflunine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, suggesting that vinflunine 320 mg/m2 merits evaluation., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01091168.