A phase III randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial to determine the efficacy of low level laser therapy for the prevention of oral mucositis in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation

Introduction Oral mucositis (OM) is a significant early complication of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). This phase III randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was designed to compare the ability of 2 different low level GaAlAs diode lasers (650 nm and 780 nm) to prevent oral mucositis in HCT patients conditioned with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.Materials and methods Seventy patients were enrolled and randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups: 650 nm laser, 780 nm laser or placebo. All active laser treatment patients received daily direct laser treatment to the lower labial mucosa, right and left buccal mucosa, lateral and ventral surfaces of the tongue, and floor of mouth with energy densities of 2 J/cm(2). Study treatment began on the first day of conditioning and continued through day +2 post HCT. Mucositis and oral pain was measured on days 0, 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 21 post HCT.Results the 650 nm wavelength reduced the severity of oral mucositis and pain scores. Low level laser therapy was well-tolerated and no adverse events were noted.Discussion While these results are encouraging, further study is needed to truly establish the efficacy of this mucositis prevention strategy. Future research needs to determine the effects of modification of laser parameters (e.g., wavelength, fluence, repetition rate of energy delivery, etc.) on the effectiveness of LLE laser to prevent OM.

ORAL MUCOSITIS PREVENTION BY LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY IN HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY: A PHASE III RANDOMIZED STUDY

Purpose: Oral mucositis is a major complication of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in head-and-neck cancer patients. Low-level laser (LLL) therapy is a promising preventive therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of LLL therapy to decrease severe oral mucositis and its effect on RT interruptions. Methods and Materials: In the present randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, patients received either gallium-aluminum-arsenide LLL therapy 2.5 J/cm(2) or placebo laser, before each radiation fraction. Eligible patients had to have been diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or metastases to the neck with an unknown primary site. They were treated with adjuvant or definitive CRT, consisting of conventional RT 60-70 Gy (range, 1.8-2.0 Gy/d, 5 times/wk) and concurrent cisplatin. The primary endpoints were the oral mucositis severity in Weeks 2, 4, and 6 and the number of RT interruptions because of mucositis. The secondary endpoints included patient-reported pain scores. To detect a decrease in the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis from 80% to 50%, we planned to enroll 74 patients. Results: A total of 75 patients were included, and 37 patients received preventive LLL therapy. The mean delivered radiation dose was greater in the patients treated with LLL (69.4 vs. 67.9 Gy, p = .03). During CRT, the number of patients diagnosed with Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis treated with LLL vs. placebo was 4 vs. 5 (Week 2, p = 1.0), 4 vs. 12 (Week 4, p = .08), and 8 vs. 9 (Week 6, p = 1.0), respectively. More of the patients treated with placebo had RT interruptions because of mucositis (6 vs. 0, p = .02). No difference was detected between the treatment arms in the incidence of severe pain. Conclusions: LLL therapy was not effective in reducing severe oral mucositis, although a marginal benefit could not be excluded. It reduced RT interruptions in these head-and-neck cancer patients, which might translate into improved CRT efficacy. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

Purpose Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2: 1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. Results In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. Conclusion Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC. J Clin Oncol 30:3596-3603. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Efficacy and safety of the Betamethasone valerate 0.1% plaster in mild-to-moderate chronic plaque psoriasis: a randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, phase III study

Corticosteroids are a versatile option for the treatment of mild-to-moderate psoriasis due to their availability in a wide range of potencies and formulations. Occlusion of the corticosteroid is a widely accepted procedure to enhance the penetration of the medication, thereby improving its effectiveness. Betamethasone valerate (BMV) is a moderately potent corticosteroid that is available as a cream, ointment, and lotion. A ready-to-use occlusive dressing, which provides a continuous sustained release of BMV, has been developed for the treatment of psoriasis.

Interpreting Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early breast cancer

The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study is a four-arm trial comparing 5 years of monotherapy with tamoxifen or with letrozole or with sequences of 2 years of one followed by 3 years of the other for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early invasive breast cancer. From 1998 to 2003, BIG -98 enrolled 8,010 women. The enhanced design f the trial enabled two complementary analyses of efficacy and safety. Collection of tumor specimens further enabled treatment comparisons based on tumor biology. Reports of BIG 1-98 should be interpreted in relation to each individual patient as she weighs the costs and benefits of available treatments.

Radiotherapy and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis of the EORTC 26981/22981-NCIC CE3 phase III randomized trial

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and National Cancer Institute of Canada trial on temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy (RT) in glioblastoma (GBM) has demonstrated that the combination of TMZ and RT conferred a significant and meaningful survival advantage compared with RT alone. We evaluated in this trial whether the recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) retains its overall prognostic value and what the benefit of the combined modality is in each RPA class. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred seventy-three patients with newly diagnosed GBM were randomly assigned to standard postoperative RT or to the same RT with concomitant TMZ followed by adjuvant TMZ. The primary end point was overall survival. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer RPA used accounts for age, WHO performance status, extent of surgery, and the Mini-Mental Status Examination. RESULTS: Overall survival was statistically different among RPA classes III, IV, and V, with median survival times of 17, 15, and 10 months, respectively, and 2-year survival rates of 32%, 19%, and 11%, respectively (P < .0001). Survival with combined TMZ/RT was higher in RPA class III, with 21 months median survival time and a 43% 2-year survival rate, versus 15 months and 20% for RT alone (P = .006). In RPA class IV, the survival advantage remained significant, with median survival times of 16 v 13 months, respectively, and 2-year survival rates of 28% v 11%, respectively (P = .0001). In RPA class V, however, the survival advantage of RT/TMZ was of borderline significance (P = .054). CONCLUSION: RPA retains its prognostic significance overall as well as in patients receiving RT with or without TMZ for newly diagnosed GBM, particularly in classes III and IV.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Randomized trial of daily versus weekly administration of 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine in patients with hairy cell leukemia: a multicenter phase III trial (SAKK 32/98)

Daily administration of 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine (Cladribine, CDA) is a standard treatment for hairy cell leukemia, but may cause severe neutropenia and neutropenic fever. This trial compared toxicity and efficacy of weekly versus daily CDA administration. One hundred patients were randomized to receive standard (CDA 0.14 mg/kg/day day 1-5 [Arm A]) or experimental treatment (CDA 0.14 mg/kg/day once weekly for 5 weeks [Arm B]). The primary endpoint was average leukocyte count within 6 weeks from randomization. Secondary endpoints included response rates, other acute hematotoxicity, acute infection rate, hospital admission, remission duration, event-free, and overall survival. There was no significant difference in average leukocyte count. Response rate (complete + partial remission) at week 10 was 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64-88%) in Arm A and 68% (95% CI 54-80%) in Arm B (p = 0.13). Best response rates during follow-up were identical (86%) in both arms. No significant difference was found in the rate of grade 3+4 leukocytopenia (94%vs. 84%), grade 3+4 neutropenia (90%vs. 80%), acute infection (44%vs. 40%), hospitalization (38%vs. 34%), and erythrocyte support (22%vs. 30%) within 10 weeks. Overall, these findings indicate that there are no apparent advantages in toxicity and efficacy by giving CDA weekly rather than daily.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Rituximab Maintenance for a Maximum of 5 Years After Single-Agent Rituximab Induction in Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial SAKK 35/03.

PURPOSE Rituximab maintenance therapy has been shown to improve progression-free survival in patients with follicular lymphoma; however, the optimal duration of maintenance treatment remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred seventy patients with untreated, relapsed, stable, or chemotherapy-resistant follicular lymphoma were treated with four doses of rituximab monotherapy in weekly intervals (375 mg/m(2)). Patients achieving at least a partial response were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with one infusion of rituximab every 2 months, either on a short-term schedule (four administrations) or a long-term schedule (maximum of 5 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and toxicity were secondary end points. Comparisons between the two arms were performed using the log-rank test for survival end points. RESULTS One hundred sixty-five patients were randomly assigned to the short-term (n = 82) or long-term (n = 83) maintenance arms. Because of the low event rate, the final analysis was performed after 95 events had occurred, which was before the targeted event number of 99 had been reached. At a median follow-up period of 6.4 years, the median EFS was 3.4 years (95% CI, 2.1 to 5.3) in the short-term arm and 5.3 years (95% CI, 3.5 to not available) in the long-term arm (P = .14). Patients in the long-term arm experienced more adverse effects than did those in the short-term arm, with 76% v 50% of patients with at least one adverse event (P < .001), five versus one patient with grade 3 and 4 infections, and three versus zero patients discontinuing treatment because of unacceptable toxicity, respectively. There was no difference in OS between the two groups. CONCLUSION Long-term rituximab maintenance therapy does not improve EFS, which was the primary end point of this trial, or OS, and was associated with increased toxicity.

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.