Search

Summary Background PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors are active in metastatic urothelial carcinoma, but positive randomised data supporting their use as a first-line treatment are lacking. In this study we assessed outcomes with first-line pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. Methods KEYNOTE-361 is a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial of patients aged at least 18 years, with untreated, locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 2. Eligible patients were enrolled from 201 medical centres in 21 countries and randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a maximum of 35 cycles plus intravenous chemotherapy (gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2] on days 1 and 8 and investigator's choice of cisplatin [70 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the curve 5] on day 1 of every 3-week cycle) for a maximum of six cycles, pembrolizumab alone, or chemotherapy alone, stratified by choice of platinum therapy and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to the treatment assignment or CPS. At protocol-specified final analysis, sequential hypothesis testing began with superiority of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the total population (all patients randomly allocated to a treatment) for the dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (p value boundary 0·0019), assessed by masked, independent central review, and overall survival (p value boundary 0·0142), followed by non-inferiority and superiority of overall survival for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in the patient population with CPS of at least 10 and in the total population (also a primary endpoint). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). This study is completed and is no longer enrolling patients, and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02853305 . Findings Between Oct 19, 2016 and June 29, 2018, 1010 patients were enrolled and allocated to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n=351), pembrolizumab monotherapy (n=307), or chemotherapy alone (n=352). Median follow-up was 31·7 months (IQR 27·7–36·0). Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy did not significantly improve progression-free survival, with a median progression-free survival of 8·3 months (95% CI 7·5–8·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 7·1 months (6·4–7·9) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·65–0·93; p=0·0033), or overall survival, with a median overall survival of 17·0 months (14·5–19·5) in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 14·3 months (12·3–16·7) in the chemotherapy group (0·86, 0·72–1·02; p=0·0407). No further formal statistical hypothesis testing was done. In analyses of overall survival with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (now exploratory based on hierarchical statistical testing), overall survival was similar between these treatment groups, both in the total population (15·6 months [95% CI 12·1–17·9] with pembrolizumab vs 14·3 months [12·3–16·7] with chemotherapy; HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·77–1·11) and the population with CPS of at least 10 (16·1 months [13·6–19·9] with pembrolizumab vs 15·2 months [11·6–23·3] with chemotherapy; 1·01, 0·77–1·32). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event attributed to study treatment was anaemia with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (104 [30%] of 349 patients) or chemotherapy alone (112 [33%] of 342 patients), and diarrhoea, fatigue, and hyponatraemia (each affecting four [1%] of 302 patients) with pembrolizumab alone. Six (1%) of 1010 patients died due to an adverse event attributed to study treatment; two patients in each treatment group. One each occurred due to cardiac arrest and device-related sepsis in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group, one each due to cardiac failure and malignant neoplasm progression in the pembrolizumab group, and one each due to myocardial infarction and ischaemic colitis in the chemotherapy group. Interpretation The addition of pembrolizumab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy did not significantly improve efficacy and should not be widely adopted for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma. Funding Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Background: The first interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-564 study showed improved disease-free survival with adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with placebo after surgery in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at an increased risk of recurrence. The analysis reported here, with an additional 6 months of follow-up, was designed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus placebo, as well as additional secondary and exploratory endpoints. Methods: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with clear cell renal cell carcinoma with an increased risk of recurrence were enrolled at 213 hospitals and cancer centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Eligible participants had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had undergone nephrectomy 12 weeks or less before randomisation, and had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via central permuted block randomisation (block size of four) to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles. Randomisation was stratified by metastatic disease status (M0 vs M1), and the M0 group was further stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. All participants and investigators involved in study treatment administration were masked to the treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival by investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly assigned to a treatment). Safety was assessed in the safety population, comprising all participants who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab or placebo. As the primary endpoint was met at the first interim analysis, updated data are reported without p values. This study is ongoing, but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03142334. Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Sept 20, 2019, 994 participants were assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=496) or placebo (n=498). Median follow-up, defined as the time from randomisation to data cutoff (June 14, 2021), was 30·1 months (IQR 25·7–36·7). Disease-free survival was better with pembrolizumab compared with placebo (HR 0·63 [95% CI 0·50–0·80]). Median disease-free survival was not reached in either group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (in 14 [3%] of 496 participants) and increased alanine aminotransferase (in 11 [2%]) in the pembrolizumab group, and hypertension (in 13 [3%] of 498 participants) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 59 (12%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and one (

Introduction Severe neutropenia is a dose-limiting factor that occurs in up to 82% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with cabazitaxel. This study evaluated the effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) plus ciprofloxacin as prophylaxis in post-docetaxel patients with mCRPC treated with cabazitaxel and at high risk for neutropenia. Patients and Methods This was a phase IV, multicenter, open-label, single-arm interventional study with men aged ≥ 65 years (or 12 weeks. Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 and prednisone were given on day 1, every 21 days. G-CSF was administered on days 2 to 8 of each cycle or until an absolute neutrophil count > 2000/mm3, and ciprofloxacin 1000 mg was given orally on days 5 to 12. The rate of neutropenia grade ≥ 3 during the first cycle (primary endpoint), and frequency of neutropenia grade ≥ 3, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea grade ≥ 3, prostate-specific antigen response, and quality of life during treatment (secondary end points) were estimated. Results We included 46 patients. The mean number of cabazitaxel cycles was 9.5. During the first cycle, 40.0% of patients had neutropenia grade ≥ 3, and 42.2% had at least 1 episode of neutropenia during treatment. Febrile neutropenia and diarrhea grade ≥ 3 occurred in 1 patient each. Twenty-nine (64.4%) patients achieved prostate-specific antigen response, and 77.2% improved quality of life scores in at least 1 visit. Conclusions Prophylactic G-CSF was effective in preventing neutropenia grade ≥ 3 and other hematologic complications during treatment with cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 in post-docetaxel patients with mCRPC at high risk for neutropenia. The role of prophyclatic ciprofloxacin to prevent febrile neutropenia in this setting is still unclear and needs to be further evaluated.

To compare global health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and overall survival (OS) in patients with head and neck cancer treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) or conventional radiation therapy (2DRT).In this real-world, multi-institutional and prospective study, HRQoL outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Head and Neck 43 (HN43) questionnaires. Item response theory was used to generate a global HRQoL score, based on the 71 questions from both forms. The effect of treatment modality on HRQoL was studied using multivariate regression analyses. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meyer method, and groups were compared by the log-rank test.Five hundred and seventy patients from 13 institutions were included. Median follow-up was 12.2 months. Concerning the radiation technique, 29.5% of the patients were treated with 2DRT, 43.7% received 3DCRT, and 26.8% were treated with IMRT. A higher proportion of patients receiving 2DRT had a treatment interruption of more than 5 days (69% vs 50.2% for 3DCRT and 42.5% for IMRT). IMRT had a statistically significant positive effect on HRQoL compared with 3DCRT (β= 2.627, standard error = 0.804, P = .001) and 2DRT had a statistically significant negative effect compared with 3DCRT (β= -5.075, standard error = 0.926, P.001). Patients receiving 2DRT presented a worse OS (P = .01). There were no differences in OS when IMRT was compared with 3DCRT.IMRT provided better HRQoL than 3DCRT, which provided better HRQoL than 2DRT. Patients receiving 2DRT presented a worse OS, which might be related to more frequent treatment interruptions.

203 Background: Anti-EGFR treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Latin America includes cetuximab or panitumumab, added to chemotherapy (cet+CT and pan+CT, respectively). Adverse event (AE) profiles for each regimen may influence the treatment decision. This study aimed to estimate the associated financial impact of AE management in three countries: Argentina (AR), Brazil (BR) and Panama (PA) from a healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We revised a published Microsoft Excel-based economic model to calculate average patient- and population-level costs from a payer perspective of mCRC AE management for first-line cet+CT and pan+CT treatment, using AE frequency and severity data derived from the authorization relevant FDA prescribing information (PI), multiplied by the country-specific unit costs of managing AEs. Costs of AE management were obtained from publicly available sources in each country and converted to US dollars (USD). Country-specific market research data were applied to calculate costs at the eligible mCRC population level. The model structure and input parameters were endorsed by local practising oncologists. Results: A 17.5% (all-grade) and 31.6% (grade 3-4) lower average per patient AE frequency were estimated from the PI, for cet+CT vs pan+CT. Cost results are presented in the table. Projected AE management costs of cet+CT for the eligible mCRC population are $297,643 (AR), $124,981 (BR) and $65,895 (PA), annually, reducing current annual estimated AE costs by $42,181 (AR), $8,548 (BR) and $4,691 (PA). Conclusions: According to the average estimated AE frequencies, patients treated with cet+CT are expected to experience fewer AEs than with pan+CT. According to our analyses, the lower frequency rates could result in lower overall and severe AEs’ management costs, resulting in 12.4% (AR), 6.4% (BR) and 6.6% (PA) lower costs of AE management for cet+CT versus pan+CT.[Table: see text]