Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥ 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Content and methodology of predoctoral Geriatric Dentistry teaching in Europe

Objectives: To explore the content and methodology of predoctoral Geriatric Dentistry teaching amongst European dental schools.
Methods: The study was conducted by the European College of Gerodontology (ECG) Education Committee. Αn electronic questionnaire has been developed with close and open-ended items, including information on the prevalence and institutional anchorage of Gerodontology programs, the educators, the content and the methodology of teaching. An electronic mail, including a hyperlink to the questionnaire, was sent to 216 dental schools in 39 European countries (Winter/ Spring 2016). The Deans were asked to either answer themselves, or forward the link to faculty members with knowledge on Gerodontology teaching at their respective schools. Repeated reminders or telephone calls were used for non-respondents and personal networks were exploited to identify potential contact persons.
Results: Until August 2016, 121 dental schools from 29 countries responded to the survey (response rate 56%, EU response rate: 60%). Gerodontology was included in the predoctoral curricula of 86% of the respondents and was compulsory in 68%. The course was mainly offered in senior students and was interdisciplinary in 30% of the schools, delivered mainly by dentists (79%), physicians (21%), psychologists (10%), and nurses (5%). It was conducted as an independent lecture series in 40% of the schools and a course director was assigned in 44% of the respondents. When embedded in other disciplines, these were mainly Prosthodontics (31%). The content included a large number of items, such as epidemiology of oral health, medical problems in old age, prosthodontic management, xerostomia, and caries risk assessment. Lectures were the most common teaching format (69%), followed by small group seminars (27%). The most common types of educational material used were scientific articles (48%), printed textbooks (44%), lecture notes (40%) and e-learning material (21%). Clinical training was offered by 64% of the respondents, within the dental school clinics (49%) and/or in outreach locations (40%).
Conclusion: Amongst the respondent European dental schools (66%) there is an increasing number that teach Gerodontology at a pre-doctoral level with significant variations in content and methodology. Official guidelines and the dissemination of the ECG pre-doctoral curriculum guidelines might help to increase the prevalence and improve the status of Gerodontology teaching in Europe.