Symptom control and quality of life in lux-lung 3 : a phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations

Purpose Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. Patients and Methods Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. Results Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P lt; .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P lt; .001) and dyspnea (P = .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P = .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P lt; .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P = .01). Conclusion In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.

Treatment rationale study design for the MetLung trial : a randomized, double-blind phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients who have received standard chemotherapy for stage IIIB or IV met-positive non-small-cell lung cancer

We present the treatment rationale and study design of the MetLung phase III study. This study will investigate onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with erlotinib compared with erlotinib alone, as second- or third-line treatment, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are Met-positive by immunohistochemistry. Approximately 490 patients (245 per treatment arm) will receive erlotinib (150 mg oral daily) plus onartuzumab or placebo (15 mg/kg intravenous every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient or physician decision to discontinue, or death. The efficacy objectives of this study are to compare overall survival (OS) (primary endpoint), progression-free survival, and response rates between the 2 treatment arms. In addition, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics, and translational research will be investigated across treatment arms. If the primary objective (OS) is achieved, this study will provide robust results toward an alternative treatment option for patients with Met-positive second- or third-line NSCLC. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer

Purpose: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. Results: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. Conclusion: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. © 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/ cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer : a randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1)

Background: Phase III studies suggest that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cisplatin-docetaxel may have higher response rates and better survival compared with other platinum-based regimens. We report the final results of a randomised phase III study of docetaxel and carboplatin versus MIC or MVP in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and methods: Patients with biopsy proven stage III-IV NSCLC not suitable for curative surgery or radiotherapy were randomised to receive four cycles of either DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m 2, carboplatin AUC 6), or MIC/MVP (mitomycin 6 mg/m 2, ifosfamide 3 g/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or mitomycin 6 mg/ m 2, vinblastine 6 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2, respectively), 3 weekly. The primary end point was survival, secondary end points included response rates, toxicity and quality of life. Results: The median follow-up was 17.4 months. Overall response rate was 32% for both arms (partial response = 31%, complete response = 1%); 32% of MIC/MVP and 26% of DCb patients had stable disease. One-year survival was 39% and 35% for DCb and MIC/MVP, respectively. Two-year survival was 13% with both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia (74% versus 43%, P < 0.005), infection (18% versus 9%, P = 0.01) and mucositis (5% versus 1%, P = 0.02) were more common with DCb than MIC/MVP. The MIC/MVP arm had significant worsening in overall EORTC score and global health status whereas the DCb arm showed no significant change. Conclusions: The combination of DCb had similar efficacy to MIC/MVP but quality of life was better maintained. © 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine and carboplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND. The authors compared gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The primary objective was survival. Secondary objectives were time to disease progression, response rates, evaluation of toxicity, disease-related symptoms, World Health Organization performance status (PS), and quality of life (QoL). METHODS. Three hundred seventy-two chemotherapy-naïve patients with International Staging System Stage III/IV NSCLC who were ineligible for curative radiotherapy or surgery were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15) plus carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve, 5; given on Day 1) every 4 weeks (the GC arm) or MIC/MVP every 3 weeks (the MIC/MVP arm). RESULTS. There was no significant difference in median survival (248 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 236 days in the GC arm) or time to progression (225 days in the MIC/MVP arm vs. 218 days in the GC arm) between the 2 treatment arms. The 2-year survival rate was 11.8% in the MIC/MVP arm and 6.9% in the GC arm. The 1-year survival rate was 32.5% in the MIC/MVP arm and 33.2% in the GC arm. In the MIC/MVP arm, 33% of patients responded (4 complete responses [CRs] and 57 partial responses [PRs]) whereas in the GC arm, 30% of patients responded (3 CRs and 54 PRs). Nonhematologic toxicity was comparable for patients with Grade 3-4 symptoms, except there was more alopecia among patients in the MIC/MVP arm. GC appeared to produce more hematologic toxicity and necessitated more transfusions. There was no difference in performance status, disease-related symptoms, of QoL between patients in the two treatment arms. Fewer inpatient stays for complications were required with GC. CONCLUSIONS. The results of the current study failed to demonstrate any difference in efficacy between the newer regimen of GC and the older regimens of MIC and MVP. © 2003 American Cancer Society.

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in combination with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) 2 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience more toxicity, lower response rates, and shorter survival times than healthier patients treated with standard chemotherapy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate of paclitaxel and polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel and may lead to increased concentrations in tumors due to enhanced vascular permeability. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) and either PPX (210 mg/m/10 min without routine steroid premedication) or paclitaxel (225 mg/m/3 h with standard premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were enrolled. Alopecia, arthralgias/myalgias, and cardiac events were significantly less frequent with PPX/carboplatin, whereas grade ≥3 neutropenia and grade 3 neuropathy showed a trend of worsening. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions despite the absence of routine premedication in the PPX arm. Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; log rank p = 0.769). Median and 1-year survival rates were 7.9 months and 31%, for PPX versus 8 months and 31% for paclitaxel. Disease control rates were 64% and 69% for PPX and paclitaxel, respectively. Time to progression was similar: 3.9 months for PPX/carboplatin versus 4.6 months for paclitaxel/carboplatin (p = 0.210). CONCLUSION: PPX/carboplatin failed to provide superior survival compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin in the first-line treatment of PS 2 patients with NSCLC, but the results with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable and the PPX regimen was more convenient. © 2008International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

SRL 172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae) in addition to standard chemotherapy improves quality of life without affecting survival, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer : phase III results

Background: This open-label, randomised phase III study was designed to further investigate the clinical activity and safety of SRL172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae suspension) with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomised to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, consisting of up to six cycles of MVP (mitomycin, vinblastine and cisplatin or carboplatin) with (210 patients) or without (209 patients) monthly SRL172. Results: There was no statistical difference between the two groups in overall survival (primary efficacy end point) over the course of the study (median overall survival of 223 days versus 225 days; P = 0.65). However, a higher proportion of patients were alive at the end of the 15-week treatment phase in the chemotherapy plus SRL172 group (90%), than in the chemotherapy alone group (83%) (P = 0.061). At the end of the treatment phase, the response rate was 37% in the combined group and 33% in the chemotherapy alone group. Patients in the chemotherapy alone group had greater deterioration in their Global Health Status score (-14.3) than patients in the chemotherapy plus SRL172 group (-6.6) (P = 0.02). Conclusion: In this non-placebo controlled trial, SRL172 when added to standard cancer chemotherapy significantly improved patient quality of life without affecting overall survival times. © 2004 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX) : an open-label randomised phase III trial

Background: Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (≥18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m 2 intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m 2 over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. Findings: Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11·3 months vs 10·1 months; hazard ratio for death 0·871 [95% CI 0·762-0·996]; p=0·044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3). Interpretation: Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding: Merck KGaA. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Prospective, non-randomized phase 2 clinical trial of carboplatin plus paclitaxel with sequential radical pelvic radiotherapy for uterine papillary serous carcinoma

Objective Uterine Papillary Serous Carcinoma (UPSC) is uncommon and accounts for less than 5% of all uterine cancers. Therefore the majority of evidence about the benefits of adjuvant treatment comes from retrospective case series. We conducted a prospective multi-centre non-randomized phase 2 clinical trial using four cycles of adjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin chemotherapy followed by pelvic radiotherapy, in order to evaluate the tolerability and safety of this approach. Methods This trial enrolled patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated patients with stage 1b-4 (FIGO-1988) UPSC with a papillary serous component of at least 30%. Paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 6) were administered on day 1 of each 3-week cycle for 4 cycles. Chemotherapy was followed by external beam radiotherapy to the whole pelvis (50.4 Gy over 5.5 weeks). Completion and toxicity of treatment (Common Toxicity Criteria, CTC) and quality of life measures were the primary outcome indicators. Results Twenty-nine of 31 patients completed treatment as planned. Dose reduction was needed in 9 patients (29%), treatment delay in 7 (23%), and treatment cessation in 2 patients (6.5%). Hematologic toxicity, grade 3 or 4 occurred in 19% (6/31) of patients. Patients' self-reported quality of life remained stable throughout treatment. Thirteen of the 29 patients with stages 1–3 disease (44.8%) recurred (average follow up 28.1 months, range 8–60 months). Conclusion This multimodal treatment is feasible, safe and tolerated reasonably well and would be suitable for use in multi-institutional prospective randomized clinical trials incorporating novel therapies in patients with UPSC.

Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2 : prognostic factors and treatment selection based on two large randomized clinical trials

Purpose: Data from two randomized phase III trials were analyzed to evaluate prognostic factors and treatment selection in the first-line management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with performance status (PS) 2. Patients and Methods: Patients randomized to combination chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) in one trial and single-agent therapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in the second were included in these analyses. Both studies had identical eligibility criteria and were conducted simultaneously. Comparison of efficacy and safety was performed between the two cohorts. A regression analysis identified prognostic factors and subgroups of patients that may benefit from combination or single-agent therapy. Results: Two hundred one patients were treated with combination and 190 with single-agent therapy. Objective responses were 37 and 15%, respectively. Median time to progression was 4.6 months in the combination arm and 3.5 months in the single-agent arm (p < 0.001). Median survival imes were 8.0 and 6.6 months, and 1-year survival rates were 31 and 26%, respectively. Albumin <3.5 g, extrathoracic metastases, lactate dehydrogenase ≥200 IU, and 2 comorbid conditions predicted outcome. Patients with 0-2 risk factors had similar outcomes independent of treatment, whereas patients with 3-4 factors had a nonsignificant improvement in median survival with combination chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results show that PS2 non-small cell lung cancer patients are a heterogeneous group who have significantly different outcomes. Patients treated with first-line combination chemotherapy had a higher response and longer time to progression, whereas overall survival did not appear significantly different. A prognostic model may be helpful in selecting PS 2 patients for either treatment strategy. © 2009 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment : the M77001 study group

Purpose: This randomized, multicenter trial compared first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks, with or without trastuzumab 4 mg/kg loading dose followed by 2 mg/kg weekly until disease progression. Results: A total of 186 patients received at least one dose of the study drug. Trastuzumab plus docetaxel was significantly superior to docetaxel alone in terms of overall response rate (61% v 34%; P = .0002), overall survival (median, 31.2 v 22.7 months; P = .0325), time to disease progression (median, 11.7 v 6.1 months; P = .0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9.8 v 5.3 months; P = .0001), and duration of response (median, 11.7 v 5.7 months; P = .009). There was little difference in the number and severity of adverse events between the arms. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was seen more commonly with the combination (32%) than with docetaxel alone (22%), and there was a slightly higher incidence of febrile neutropenia in the combination arm (23% v 17%). One patient in the combination arm experienced symptomatic heart failure (1%). Another patient experienced symptomatic heart failure 5 months after discontinuation of trastuzumab because of disease progression, while being treated with an investigational anthracycline for 4 months. Conclusion: Trastuzumab combined with docetaxel is superior to docetaxel alone as first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive MBC in terms of overall survival, response rate, response duration, time to progression, and time to treatment failure, with little additional toxicity. © 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer : data from the phase III FLEX study

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. Patients and methods: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly thereafter). Results: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. Conclusion: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone. © 2007 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations

Purpose The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatmentrelated adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. Conclusion Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

A natural oil-based emulsion containing allantoin versus aqueous cream for managing radiation-induced skin reactions in patients with cancer : a phase III double-blind randomised controlled trial

Purpose To investigate the effects of a natural oil-based emulsion containing allantoin versus aqueous cream for preventing and managing radiation induced skin reactions (RISR). Methods and Materials A total of 174 patients were randomised and participated in the study. Patients either received Cream 1 (the natural oil-based emulsion containing allantoin) or Cream 2 (aqueous cream). Skin toxicity, pain, itching and skin-related quality of life scores were collected for up to four weeks after radiation treatment. Results Patients who received Cream 1 had a significantly lower average level of Common Toxicity Criteria at week 3 (p<0.05), but had statistically higher average levels of skin toxicity at weeks 7, 8 and 9 (all p<0.001). Similar results were observed when skin toxicity was analysed by grades. With regards to pain, patients in the Cream 2 group had a significantly higher average level of worst pain (p<0.05) and itching (p=0.046) compared to the Cream 1 group at week 3, however these differences were not observed at other weeks. In addition, there was a strong trend for Cream 2 to reduce the incidence of grade 2 or more skin toxicity in comparison to Cream 1 (p=0.056). Overall, more participants in the Cream 1 group were required to use another topical treatment at weeks 8 (p=0.049) and 9 (p=0.01). Conclusion The natural oil-based emulsion containing allantoin appears to have similar effects for managing skin toxicity compared to aqueous cream up to week 5, however, it becomes significantly less effective at later weeks into the radiation treatment and beyond treatment completion (week 6 and beyond). There were no major differences in pain, itching and skin-related quality of life. In light of these results, clinicians and patients can base their decision on costs and preferences. Overall, aqueous cream appears to be a more preferred option.