Induction chemoradiation in stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: One of the standard options in the treatment of stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer is neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. We did a randomised trial to investigate whether the addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy improves outcomes. METHODS: We enrolled patients in 23 centres in Switzerland, Germany and Serbia. Eligible patients had pathologically proven, stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer and were randomly assigned to treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio. Those in the chemoradiotherapy group received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (100 mg/m(2) cisplatin and 85 mg/m(2) docetaxel) followed by radiotherapy with 44 Gy in 22 fractions over 3 weeks, and those in the control group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. All patients were scheduled to undergo surgery. Randomisation was stratified by centre, mediastinal bulk (less than 5 cm vs 5 cm or more), and weight loss (5% or more vs less than 5% in the previous 6 months). The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00030771. FINDINGS: From 2001 to 2012, 232 patients were enrolled, of whom 117 were allocated to the chemoradiotherapy group and 115 to the chemotherapy group. Median event-free survival was similar in the two groups at 12·8 months (95% CI 9·7-22·9) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 11·6 months (8·4-15·2) in the chemotherapy group (p=0·67). Median overall survival was 37·1 months (95% CI 22·6-50·0) with radiotherapy, compared with 26·2 months (19·9-52·1) in the control group. Chemotherapy-related toxic effects were reported in most patients, but 91% of patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy. Radiotherapy-induced grade 3 dysphagia was seen in seven (7%) patients. Three patients died in the control group within 30 days after surgery. INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy did not add any benefit to induction chemotherapy followed by surgery. We suggest that one definitive local treatment modality combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is adequate to treat resectable stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss Cancer League, and Sanofi.

A Lead-In with Silibinin Prior to Triple-Therapy Translates into Favorable Treatment Outcomes in Difficult-To-Treat HIV/Hepatitis C Coinfected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of first-generation protease inhibitor based triple-therapy against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is limited in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and non-response to previous peginterferon-ribavirin. These patients have a low chance of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) using first generation triple-therapy, with a success rate of only 20%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin followed by triple-therapy in this difficult-to-treat patient group. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria were HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced liver fibrosis and documented previous treatment failure on peginterferon-ribavirin. The intervention was a lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin 20 mg/kg/day for 14 days, followed by triple-therapy (peginterferon-ribavirin and telaprevir) for 12 weeks, and peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 36 weeks. Outcome measurements were HCV-RNA after silibinin lead-in and during triple-therapy, SVR data at week 12, and safety and tolerability of silibinin. RESULTS: We examined sixteen HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with previous peginterferon-ribavirin failure, of whom 14 had a fibrosis grade METAVIR ≥F3. All were on successful antiretroviral therapy. Median (IQR) HCV-RNA decline after silibinin therapy was 2.65 (2.1-2.8) log10 copies/mL. Fifteen of sixteen patients (94%) had undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, eleven patients (69%) showed end-of-treatment response (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 48), and ten patients (63%) reached SVR at week 12 (SVR 12). Six of the sixteen patients (37%) did not reach SVR 12: One patient had rapid virologic response (RVR) (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 4) but stopped treatment at week 8 due to major depression. Five patients had RVR, but experienced viral breakthroughs at week 21, 22, 25, or 32, or a relapse at week 52. The HIV RNA remained below the limit of detection in all patients during the complete treatment period. No serious adverse events and no significant drug-drug interactions were associated with silibinin. CONCLUSION: A lead-in with silibinin before triple-therapy was safe and highly effective in difficult-to-treat HIV/HCV coinfected patients, with a pronounced HCV-RNA decline during the lead-in phase, which translates into 63% SVR. An add-on of intravenous silibinin to standard of care HCV treatment is worth further exploration in selected difficult-to-treat patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01816490.

Outcome of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome on palliative treatment: insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus Registry 1997-2014.

OBJECTIVE: Compliance with guidelines is increasingly used to benchmark the quality of hospital care, however, very little is known on patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and treated palliatively. This study aimed to evaluate the baseline characteristics and outcomes of these patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eighty-two Swiss hospitals enrolled patients from 1997 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with ACS enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry (n=45,091) were analysed according to three treatment groups: palliative treatment, defined as use of aspirin and analgesics only and no reperfusion; conservative treatment, defined as any treatment including antithrombotics or anticoagulants, heparins, P2Y12 inhibitors, GPIIb/IIIa but no pharmacological or mechanical reperfusion; and reperfusion treatment (thrombolysis and/or percutaneous coronary intervention during initial hospitalisation). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality and the secondary measure was 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Of the patients, 1485 (3.3%) were palliatively treated, 11,119 (24.7%) were conservatively treated and 32,487 (72.0%) underwent reperfusion therapy. In 1997, 6% of all patients were treated palliatively and this continuously decreased to 2% in 2013. Baseline characteristics of palliative patients differed in comparison with conservatively treated and reperfusion patients in age, gender and comorbidities (all p<0.001). These patients had more in-hospital complications such as postadmission onset of cardiogenic shock (15.6% vs 5.2%; p<0.001), stroke (1.8% vs 0.8%; p=0.001) and a higher in-hospital mortality (25.8% vs 5.6%; p<0.001).The subgroup of patients followed 1 year after discharge (n=8316) had a higher rate of reinfarction (9.2% vs 3.4%; p=0.003) and mortality (14.0% vs 3.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACS treated palliatively were older, sicker, with more heart failure at admission and very high in-hospital mortality. While refraining from more active therapy may often constitute the most humane and appropriate approach, we think it is important to also evaluate these patients and include them in registries and outcome evaluations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01 305 785.

Olanzapine or chlorpromazine plus lithium in first episode psychotic mania: An 8-week randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for mental disorders may vary according to illness stage. However no data currently exist to guide treatment in first episode psychotic mania. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy profile of chlorpromazine and olanzapine, as add-on to lithium, in patients with a first episode of psychotic mania, expecting better safety profile and adherence to olanzapine but similar efficacy for both treatments. METHODS: Data from 83 patients were collected in an 8-week randomised controlled trial on clinical variables, side effects, vital signs, and weight. Analyses of treatment differences over time were based on intent-to-treat principles. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival curves were used to analyse time-to-event data and mixed effects models repeated measures analysis of variance were used to determine treatment group differences over time on safety and efficacy measures. RESULTS: Ethics committee approval to delay informed consent procedure until recovery from the acute episode allowed the inclusion of 83 patients highly representative of those treated in the public sector. Contrary to our hypotheses, safety profile of both medications was similar. A signal for higher rate (P=.032) and earlier occurrence (P=.043) of mania remission was observed in the olanzapine group which did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine and chlorpromazine have a similar safety profile in a uniquely representative cohort of patients with first episode psychotic mania. The possibility for a greater impact of olanzapine on manic symptoms leading to earlier remission of the episode needs exploration in a large sample.

Ability of physicians to diagnose influenza and usefulness of a rapid influenza antigen test in febrile returning travelers: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fever is a frequent cause of medical consultation among returning travelers. The objectives of this study were to assess whether physicians were able to identify patients with influenza and whether the use of an influenza rapid diagnostic test (iRDT) modified the clinical management of such patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 different Swiss hospitals between December 2008 and November 2012. Inclusion criteria were 1) age ≥18 years, 2) documented fever of ≥38 °C or anamnestic fever + cough or sore throat within the last 4 days, 3) illness occurring within 14 days after returning from a trip abroad, 4) no definitive alternative diagnosis. Physicians were asked to estimate the likelihood of influenza on clinical grounds, and a single nasopharyngeal swab was taken. Thereafter patients were randomized into 2 groups: i) patients with iRDT (BD Directigen A + B) performed on the nasopharyngeal swab, ii) patients receiving usual care. A quantitative PCR to detect influenza was done on all nasopharyngeal swabs after the recruitment period. Clinical management was evaluated on the basis of cost of medical care, number of X-rays requested and prescription of anti-infective drugs. RESULTS: 100 eligible patients were referred to the investigators. 93 patients had a naso-pharyngeal swab for a PCR and 28 (30%) swabs were positive for influenza. The median probability of influenza estimated by the physician was 70% for the PCR positive cases and 30% for the PCR negative cases (p < 0.001). The sensitivity of the iRDT was only 20%, and specificity 100%. Mean medical cost for the patients managed with iRDT and without iRDT were USD 581 (95%CI 454-707) and USD 661 (95%CI 522-800) respectively. 14/60 (23%) of the patients managed with iRDT were prescribed antibiotics versus 13/33 (39%) in the control group (p = 0.15). No patient received antiviral treatment. CONCLUSION: Influenza was a frequent cause of fever among these febrile returning travelers. Based on their clinical assessment, physicians had a higher level of suspicion for influenza in PCR positive cases. The iRDT used in this study showed a disappointingly low sensitivity and can therefore not be recommended for the management of these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00821626.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.

Making SENSE - Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus as a multicenter prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the different treatment options of status epilepticus (SE) in adults is scarce. Large randomized trials cover only one treatment at early stage and suggest the superiority of benzodiazepines over placebo, of intravenous lorazepam over intravenous diazepam or over intravenous phenytoin alone, and of intramuscular midazolam over intravenous lorazepam. However, many patients will not be treated successfully with the first treatment step. A large randomized trial covering the treatment of established status (ESETT) has just been funded recently by the NIH and will not start before 2015, with expected results in 2018; a trial on the treatment of refractory status with general anesthetics was terminated early due to insufficient recruitment. Therefore, a prospective multicenter observational registry was set up; this may help in clinical decision-making until results from randomized trials are available. METHODS/DESIGN: SENSE is a prospective, multicenter registry for patients treated for SE. The primary objective is to document patient characteristics, treatment modalities and in-house outcome of consecutive adults admitted for SE treatment in each of the participating centres and to identify predictors of outcome. Pre-treatment, treatment-related and outcome variables are documented systematically. To allow for meaningful multivariate analysis in the patient subgroups with refractory SE, a cohort size of 1000 patients is targeted. DISCUSSION: The results of the study will provide information about risks and benefits of specific treatment steps in different patient groups with SE at different points of time. Thus, it will support clinical decision-making and, furthermore, it will be helpful in the planning of treatment trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00000725.

Severity and burden of partial-onset seizures in a phase III trial of eslicarbazepine acetate.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare posttreatment seizure severity in a phase III clinical trial of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as adjunctive treatment of refractory partial-onset seizures. METHODS: The Seizure Severity Questionnaire (SSQ) was administered at baseline and posttreatment. The SSQ total score (TS) and component scores (frequency and helpfulness of warning signs before seizures [BS]; severity and bothersomeness of ictal movement and altered consciousness during seizures [DS]; cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of postictal recovery after seizures [AS]; and overall severity and bothersomeness [SB]) were calculated for the per-protocol population. Analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline scores, estimated differences in posttreatment least square means between treatment arms. RESULTS: Out of 547 per-protocol patients, 441 had valid SSQ TS both at baseline and posttreatment. Mean posttreatment TS for ESL 1200mg/day was significantly lower than that for placebo (2.68 vs 3.20, p<0.001), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID: 0.48). Mean DS, AS, and SB were also significantly lower with ESL 1200mg/day; differences in AS and SB exceeded the MCIDs. The TS, DS, AS, and SB were lower for ESL 800mg/day than for placebo; only SB was significant (p=0.013). For both ESL arms combined versus placebo, mean scores differed significantly for TS (p=0.006), DS (p=0.031), and SB (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic ESL doses led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent reductions in seizure severity, as measured by SSQ scores. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study presents Class I evidence that adjunctive ESL (800 and 1200mg/day) led to clinically meaningful, dose-dependent seizure severity reductions, measured by the SSQ.

Maintenance Therapy With Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Temozolomide vs Temozolomide Alone for Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Glioblastoma is the most devastating primary malignancy of the central nervous system in adults. Most patients die within 1 to 2 years of diagnosis. Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are a locoregionally delivered antimitotic treatment that interferes with cell division and organelle assembly. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TTFields used in combination with temozolomide maintenance treatment after chemoradiation therapy for patients with glioblastoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: After completion of chemoradiotherapy, patients with glioblastoma were randomized (2:1) to receive maintenance treatment with either TTFields plus temozolomide (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229) (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months in both groups). The study enrolled 695 of the planned 700 patients between July 2009 and November 2014 at 83 centers in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, and South Korea. The trial was terminated based on the results of this planned interim analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with TTFields was delivered continuously (>18 hours/day) via 4 transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable medical device. Temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2/d) was given for 5 days of each 28-day cycle. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population (significance threshold of .01) with overall survival in the per-protocol population (n = 280) as a powered secondary end point (significance threshold of .006). This prespecified interim analysis was to be conducted on the first 315 patients after at least 18 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The interim analysis included 210 patients randomized to TTFields plus temozolomide and 105 randomized to temozolomide alone, and was conducted at a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 18-60 months). Median progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.9-8.2 months) in the TTFields plus temozolomide group and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-5.2 months) in the temozolomide alone group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [98.7% CI, 0.43-0.89]; P = .001). Median overall survival in the per-protocol population was 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.7-25.0 months) in the TTFields plus temozolomide group (n = 196) and 15.6 months (95% CI, 13.3-19.1 months) in the temozolomide alone group (n = 84) (HR, 0.64 [99.4% CI, 0.42-0.98]; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this interim analysis of 315 patients with glioblastoma who had completed standard chemoradiation therapy, adding TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

Randomised, multicentre, phase III, open-label study of alectinib vs crizotinib in treatment-naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced NSCLC (ALEX study).

Background: In ∼5% of advanced NSCLC tumours, ALK tyrosine kinase is constitutively activated after translocation of ALK. ALK+ NSCLC was shown to be highly sensitive to the first approved ALK inhibitor, crizotinib. However, all pts eventually relapse on crizotinib mainly due to secondary ALK mutations/amplification or CNS metastases. Alectinib is a highly selective, potent, oral next-generation ALK inhibitor. Clinical phase II alectinib data in 46 crizotinib-naïve pts with ALK+ NSCLC reported an objective response rate (ORR) of 93.5% and a 1-year progression-free rate of 83% (95% CI: 68-92) (Inoue et al. J Thorac Oncol 2013). CNS activity was seen: of 14 pts with baseline brain metastasis, 11 had prior CNS radiation, 9 of these experienced CNS and systemic PFS of >12 months; of the 3 pts without prior CNS radiation, 2 were >15 months progression free. Trial design: Randomised, multicentre, phase III, open-label study in pts with treatment-naïve ALK+ advanced, recurrent, or metastatic NSCLC. All pts must provide pretreatment tumour tissue to confirm ALK rearrangement (by IHC). Pts (∼286 from ∼180 centres, ∼30 countries worldwide) will be randomised to alectinib (600mg oral bid, with food) or crizotinib (250mg oral bid, with/without food) until disease progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Stratification factors are: ECOG PS (0/1 vs 2), race (Asian vs non-Asian), baseline CNS metastases (yes vs no). Primary endpoint: PFS by investigators (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints: PFS by Independent Review Committee (IRC); ORR; duration of response; OS; safety; pharmacokinetics; quality of life. Additionally, time to CNS progression will be evaluated (MRI) for the first time in a prospective randomised NSCLC trial as a secondary endpoint. Pts with isolated asymptomatic CNS progression will be allowed to continue treatment beyond documented progression until systemic PD and/or symptomatic CNS progression, according to investigator opinion. Time to CNS progression will be retrospectively assessed by the IRC using two separate criteria, RECIST and RANO. Further details: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02075840). Disclosure: T.S.K. Mok: Advisory boards: AZ, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Eisai, BMS, AVEO, Pfizer, Taiho, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GSK Biologicals, Clovis Oncology, Amgen, Janssen, BioMarin; board of directors: IASLC; corporate sponsored research: AZ; M. Perol: Advisory boards: Roche; S.I. Ou: Consulting: Pfizer, Chugai, Genentech Speaker Bureau: Pfizer, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim; I. Bara: Employee: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; V. Henschel: Employee and stock: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; D.R. Camidge: Honoraria: Roche/Genentech. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy: final results of the randomized multicenter phase II trial SAKK17/04.

Aim: We have previously documented the feasibility of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP in a multicenter trial of MPM (Weder, Ann Oncol 18: 1196, 2007). The objectives of the trimodality trial SAKK17/04 (NCT00334594) were to evaluate the time to loco-regional relapse with or without high dose hemithoracic radiotherapy in a prospective multicenter randomized phase II trial in patients with R0 and R1 resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP. Methods: Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed MPM, surgically resectable TNM stage (T1-3 N0-2 M0), PS0-1, ages 18-70 years. Part 1 had a phase II design, and included neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3 cycles of cisplatin and pemetrexed, followed by restaging and EPP. The primary endpoint of part 1 was complete macroscopic resection (R0-1). Part 2 randomized consenting patients with R0-1 resection into two parallel phase II arms (control arm A and radiotherapy arm B). The primary endpoint for part 2 was loco-regional relapse-free survival (RFS). To detect a 1 year increase with 80% power and 10% alpha, 37 patients were needed for arm B. Secondary endpoints included operability, tolerability of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, survival, and translational research Results: Because accrual of part 2 was slower than planned, the trial was stopped in 2013. Overall, 153 patients entered the trial, of whom 125 underwent surgery and 99 had a complete macroscopic resection (primary endpoint part 1). Of the later patients, 54 could be randomized 1:1 into each arm. Reasons for non-randomization included patient refusal in 24 and ineligibility or protocol deviations in 21. Of the 27 patients randomized to hemithoracic radiotherapy, 25 completed the treatment as planned. For part 1 the median RFS was 8.8 (95%CI: 7.3-10.7) and median OS was 15.0 (95% CI: 12.1-19.3) months. For part 2 the median local RFS for group A was 7.6 (95%CI: 5.5-10.7) and for group B 9.4 (95%CI: 6.5-11.9) months (primary endpoint part 2), while the overall RFS and OS for group A were 5.7 (95%CI: 3.5-8.8) and 16.9 (95%CI: 10.7-23.6) months and for group B 7.6 (95% CI:5.2-10.6) and 14.9 (95%CI: 7.0-17.6) months. Conclusions: This study did not reach the primary endpoint which was defined as one-year increase in loco-regional relapse-free survival and thus does not support the routine use of hemithoracic RT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and EPP. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Final results of the SAKK 16/00 trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiation to chemotherapy alone in stage IIIA/N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Aim: One standard option in the treatment of stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. We investigated in a randomized trial whether the addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy would improve the outcome. Here we present the final results of this study. Methods: Patients (pts.) with pathologically proven, resectable stage IIIA/N2 NSCLC, performance status 0-1, and adequate organ function were randomized 1:1 to chemoradiation (CRT) with 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2 d1, q3weeks) followed by accelerated concomitant boost radiotherapy (RT) with 44 Gy in 22 fractions in 3 weeks, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (CT), with subsequent surgery for all pts. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Results: 232 pts. were randomized in 23 centers, the median follow-up was 53 months. Two thirds were men, median age was 60 years (range 37-76). Histology was squamous cell in 33%, adenocarcinoma in 43%. Response rate to CRT was 61% vs. 44% with CT. 85% of all pts. underwent surgery, 30-day postoperative mortality was 1%. The rate of complete resection was 91% (CRT) vs. 81% (CT) and the pathological complete remission (pCR) rate was 16% vs. 12%. The median EFS was 13.1 months (95% CI 9.9 - 23.5) for the CRT group vs. 11.8 months (95% CI 8.4 - 15.2) in the CT arm (p 0.665). The median overall survival (OS) with CRT was 37.1 months (95% CI 22.6 -50), with CT 26.1 months ( 95% CI 26.1 - 52.1, p 0.938). The local failure rate was 23% in both arms. In the CT arm 12 pts. were given postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for R1 resection, 6 pts. received PORT in violation of the protocol. Pts. with a pCR, mediastinal downstaging to ypN0/1 and complete resection had a better outcome. Toxicity of chemotherapy was substantial, especially febrile neutropenia was common, whereas RT was well tolerated. Conclusions: This is the first completed phase III trial to evaluate the role of induction chemoradiotherapy and surgery, in comparison to neoadjuvant CT alone followed by surgery. RT was active, it increased response, complete resection and pCR rates. However, this failed to translate into an improvement of local control, EFS or OS. Notably, surgery after induction treatment was safe, including pneumonectomy. The overall survival rates of our neoadjuvant regimen are very encouraging, especially for a multicenter setting. Disclosure: M. Pless: Advisory Board for Sanofi; R. Cathomas: Advisory Board Sanofi D.C. Betticher: Advisory Board Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma with or without hemithoracic radiotherapy (SAKK 17/04): a randomised, international, multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy has been used to treat malignant pleural mesothelioma, but it has not been assessed in a randomised trial. We assessed high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We did this phase 2 trial in two parts at 14 hospitals in Switzerland, Belgium, and Germany. We enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma; resectable TNM stages T1-3 N0-2, M0; WHO performance status 0-1; age 18-70 years. In part 1, patients were given three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 given every 3 weeks) and extrapleural pneumonectomy; the primary endpoint was complete macroscopic resection (R0-1). In part 2, participants with complete macroscopic resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive high-dose radiotherapy or not. The target volume for radiotherapy encompassed the entire hemithorax, the thoracotomy channel, and mediastinal nodal stations if affected by the disease or violated surgically. A boost was given to areas at high risk for locoregional relapse. The allocation was stratified by centre, histology (sarcomatoid vs epithelioid or mixed), mediastinal lymph node involvement (N0-1 vs N2), and T stage (T1-2 vs T3). The primary endpoint of part 1 was the proportion of patients achieving complete macroscopic resection (R0 and R1). The primary endpoint in part 2 was locoregional relapse-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00334594. FINDINGS: We enrolled patients between Dec 7, 2005, and Oct 17, 2012. Overall, we analysed 151 patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of whom 113 (75%) had extrapleural pneumonectomy. Median follow-up was 54·2 months (IQR 32-66). 52 (34%) of 151 patients achieved an objective response. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were neutropenia (21 [14%] of 151 patients), anaemia (11 [7%]), and nausea or vomiting (eight [5%]). 113 patients had extrapleural pneumonectomy, with complete macroscopic resection achieved in 96 (64%) of 151 patients. We enrolled 54 patients in part 2; 27 in each group. The main reasons for exclusion were patient refusal (n=20) and ineligibility (n=10). 25 of 27 patients completed radiotherapy. Median total radiotherapy dose was 55·9 Gy (IQR 46·8-56·0). Median locoregional relapse-free survival from surgery, was 7·6 months (95% CI 4·5-10·7) in the no radiotherapy group and 9·4 months (6·5-11·9) in the radiotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or higher toxic effects related to radiotherapy were nausea or vomiting (three [11%] of 27 patients), oesophagitis (two [7%]), and pneumonitis (two [7%]). One patient died of pneumonitis. We recorded no toxic effects data for the control group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings do not support the routine use of hemithoracic radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and extrapleural pneumonectomy. FUNDING: Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation, Eli Lilly.

A single-blind, randomised controlled trial on the effects of lithium and quetiapine monotherapy on the trajectory of cognitive functioning in first episode mania: A 12-month follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits have been reported during the early stages of bipolar disorder; however, the role of medication on such deficits remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lithium and quetiapine monotherapy on cognitive performance in people following first episode mania. METHODS: The design was a single-blind, randomised controlled trial on a cohort of 61 participants following first episode mania. Participants received either lithium or quetiapine monotherapy as maintenance treatment over a 12-month follow-up period. The groups were compared on performance outcomes using an extensive cognitive assessment battery conducted at baseline, month 3 and month 12 follow-up time-points. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between group and time in phonemic fluency at the 3-month and 12-month endpoints, reflecting greater improvements in performance in lithium-treated participants relative to quetiapine-treated participants. After controlling for multiple comparisons, there were no other significant interactions between group and time for other measures of cognition. CONCLUSION: Although the effects of lithium and quetiapine treatment were similar for most cognitive domains, the findings imply that early initiation of lithium treatment may benefit the trajectory of cognition, specifically verbal fluency in young people with bipolar disorder. Given that cognition is a major symptomatic domain of bipolar disorder and has substantive effects on general functioning, the ability to influence the trajectory of cognitive change is of considerable clinical importance.

Effects of oral supplementation of iron on hepcidin blood concentrations among non-anaemic female blood donors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hepcidin is the main hormone that regulates iron balance. Its lowering favours digestive iron absorption in cases of iron deficiency or enhanced erythropoiesis. The careful dosage of this small peptide promises new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Its measurement is progressively being validated and now its clinical value must be explored in different physiological situations. Here, we evaluate hepcidin levels among premenopausal female donors with iron deficiency without anaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a preceding study, a 4-week oral iron treatment (80 mg/day) was administered in a randomized controlled trial (n = 145), in cases of iron deficiency without anaemia after a blood donation. We subsequently measured hepcidin at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment, using mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Iron supplementation had a significant effect on plasma hepcidin compared to the placebo arm at 4 weeks [+0·29 nm [95% CI: 0·18 to 0·40]). There was a significant correlation between hepcidin and ferritin at baseline (R(2) = 0·121, P < 0·001) and after treatment (R(2) = 0·436, P < 0·001). Hepcidin levels at baseline were not predictive of concentration changes for ferritin or haemoglobin. However, hepcidin levels at 4 weeks were significantly higher (0·79 nm [95% CI: 0·53 to 1·05]) among ferritin responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a 4-week oral treatment of iron increased hepcidin blood concentrations in female blood donors with an initial ferritin concentration of less than 30 ng/ml. Apparently, hepcidin cannot serve as a predictor of response to iron treatment but might serve as a marker of the iron repletion needed for erythropoiesis.