Characterisation of the impact of open biomass burning on urban air quality in Brisbane, Australia

Open biomass burning from wildfires and the prescribed burning of forests and farmland is a frequent occurrence in South-East Queensland (SEQ), Australia. This work reports on data collected from 10-30 September 2011, which covers the days before (10-14 September), during (15-20 September) and after (21-30 September) a period of biomass burning in SEQ. The aim of this project was to comprehensively quantify the impact of the biomass burning on air quality in Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland. A multi-parameter field measurement campaign was conducted and ambient air quality data from 13 monitoring stations across SEQ were analysed. During the burning period, the average concentrations of all measured pollutants increased (from 20% to 430%) compared to the non-burning period (both before and after burning), except for total xylenes. The average concentration of O3, NO2, SO2, benzene, formaldehyde, PM10, PM2.5 and visibility-reducing particles reached their highest levels for the year, which were up to 10 times higher than annual average levels, while PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 concentrations exceeded the WHO 24-hour guidelines and O3 concentration exceeded the WHO maximum 8-hour average threshold during the burning period. Overall spatial variations showed that all measured pollutants, with the exception of O3, were closer to spatial homogeneity during the burning compared to the non-burning period. In addition to the above, elevated concentrations of three biomass burning organic tracers (levoglucosan, mannosan and galactosan), together with the amount of non-refractory organic particles (PM1) and the average value of f60 (attributed to levoglucosan), reinforce that elevated pollutant concentration levels were due to emissions from open biomass burning events, 70% of which were prescribed burning events. This study, which is the first and most comprehensive of its kind in Australia, provides quantitative evidence of the significant impact of open biomass burning events, especially prescribed burning, on urban air quality. The current results provide a solid platform for more detailed health and modelling investigations in the future.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.