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.

PURPOSE: 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Afatinib versus placebo as adjuvant therapy after chemoradiation in a double-blind, phase III study (LUX-Head & Neck 2) in patients with primary unresected, clinically intermediate-to-high-risk head and neck cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over 50% of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) present with locoregionally advanced disease. Those at intermediate-to-high risk of recurrence after definitive therapy exhibit advanced disease based on tumour size or lymph node involvement, non-oropharynx primary sites, human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative oropharyngeal cancer, or HPV-positive oropharynx cancer with smoking history (>10-pack-years). Non-surgical approaches include concurrent chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy followed by definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, or radiotherapy alone. Following locoregional therapies (including surgical salvage of residual cervical nodes), no standard intervention exists. Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), an ErbB family member, is associated with poor prognosis in HNSCC. EGFR-targeted cetuximab is the only targeted therapy that impacts overall survival and is approved for HNSCC in the USA or Europe. However, resistance often occurs, and new approaches, such as targeting multiple ErbB family members, may be required. Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, demonstrated antiproliferative activity in preclinical models and comparable clinical efficacy with cetuximab in a randomized phase II trial in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. LUX-Head & Neck 2, a phase III study, will assess adjuvant afatinib versus placebo following chemoradiotherapy in primary unresected locoregionally advanced intermediate-to-high-risk HNSCC. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with primary unresected locoregionally advanced HNSCC, in good clinical condition with unfavourable risk of recurrence, and no evidence of disease after chemoradiotherapy will be randomized 2:1 to oral once-daily afatinib (40 mg starting dose) or placebo. As HPV status will not be determined for eligibility, unfavourable risk is defined as non-oropharynx primary site or oropharynx cancer in patients with a smoking history (>10 pack-years). Treatment will continue for 18 months or until recurrence or unacceptable adverse events occur. The primary endpoint measure is duration of disease-free survival; secondary endpoint measures are disease-free survival rate at 2 years, overall survival, health-related quality of life and safety. DISCUSSION: Given the unmet need in the adjuvant treatment of intermediate-to-high-risk HNSCC patients, it is expected that LUX-Head & Neck 2 will provide new insights into treatment in this setting and might demonstrate the ability of afatinib to significantly improve disease-free survival, compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345669.

Subgroup And Quality Of Life Analyses Of The Phase Iii Clinical Trial Of Novottf-100a Versus Best Standard Chemotherapy For Recurrent Glioblastoma

BACKGROUND: NovoTTF is a portable device delivering low-intensity, intermediate-frequency, electric fields using noninvasive, disposable scalp electrodes. These fields physically interfere with cell division. Preliminary studies in recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) have shown promising results. A phase III study in recurrent GBM has recently been concluded. METHODS: Adults (KPS ≥ 70%) with recurrent GBM (any recurrence) were randomized (stratified by surgery and center) to either NovoTTF administered continuously (20-24 hours/day, 7 days/week) or the best available chemotherapy (best physician choice [BPC]). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6), 1-year survival, and QOL were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients were randomized (28 centers in the United States and Europe) to either NovoTTF alone (120 patients) or BPC (117 patients). Patient characteristics were balanced, median age was 54 years (range, 23-80 years), median KPS was 80% (range, 50-100). One quarter had surgery for recurrence, and over half were at their second or more recurrence. A survival advantage for the device group was seen in patients treated according to protocol (median OS, 7.8 months vs. 6.1 months; n = 185; p = 0.01). Moreover, subgroup analysis in patients with better prognostic baseline characteristics (KPS ≥ 80%; age ≤ 60; 1st-3rd recurrence) demonstrated a robust survival benefit for NovoTTF patients compared to matched BPC patients (median OS, 8.8 months vs. 6.6 months; n = 110; p < 0.01). In this group, 1-year survival was 35% vs. 20% and PFS6 was 25.6% vs. 7.7%. Interestingly, in patients who failed bevacizumab prior to the trial, OS was also significantly extended by NovoTTF (4.4 months vs. 3.1 months; n = 23 vs. n = 21; p < 0.02). Quality of life was equivalent or superior in NovoTTF patients. CONCLUSIONS: NovoTTF, a noninvasive, novel cancer treatment modality shows significant therapeutic efficacy with improved quality of life. The impact of NovoTTF was more pronounced when patients with better baseline prognostic factors were treated. A large scale phase III clinical trial in newly diagnosed GBM is currently being conducted.

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.

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.

Gefitinib in Combination with Irradiation with or Without Cisplatin in Patients with Inoperable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Trial

To establish the feasibility and tolerability of gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) with radiation (RT) or concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (CDDP) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

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.

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.

Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III non-inferiority trial (SAKK 41/06)

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard option for first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. We assessed whether no continuation is non-inferior to continuation of bevacizumab after completing first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In an open-label, phase III multicentre trial, patients with mCRC without disease progression after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomly assigned to continuing bevacizumab at a standard dose or no treatment. CT scans were done every 6 weeks until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A non-inferiority limit for hazard ratio (HR) of 0.727 was chosen to detect a difference in TTP of 6 weeks or less, with a one-sided significance level of 10% and a statistical power of 85%. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population comprised 262 patients: median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median TTP was 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-5.4] months for bevacizumab continuation versus 2.9 (95% CI 2.8-3.8) months for no continuation; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96). Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The median overall survival was 25.4 months for bevacizumab continuation versus 23.8 months (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63-1.1; P = 0.2) for no continuation. Severe adverse events were uncommon in the bevacizumab continuation arm. Costs for bevacizumab continuation were estimated to be ∼30,000 USD per patient. CONCLUSIONS Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for treatment holidays versus continuing bevacizumab monotheray, after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Based on no impact on overall survival and increased treatment costs, bevacizumab as a single agent is of no meaningful therapeutic value. More efficient treatment approaches are needed to maintain control of stabilized disease following induction therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00544700.

First-line temozolomide combined with bevacizumab in metastatic melanoma: a multicentre phase II trial (SAKK 50/07).

BACKGROUND: Oral temozolomide has shown similar efficacy to dacarbazine in phase III trials with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.1 months. Bevacizumab has an inhibitory effect on the proliferation of melanoma and sprouting endothelial cells. We evaluated the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide to improve efficacy in stage IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or more were treated with temozolomide 150 mg/m(2) days 1-7 orally and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg body weight i.v. day 1 every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was disease stabilisation rate [complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD)] at week 12 (DSR12); secondary end points were best overall response, PFS, overall survival (OS) and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (median age 59 years) enrolled at nine Swiss centres. DSR12 was 52% (PR: 10 patients and SD: 22 patients). Confirmed overall response rate was 16.1% (CR: 1 patient and PR: 9 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.2 and 9.6 months. OS (12.0 versus 9.2 months; P = 0.014) was higher in BRAF V600E wild-type patients. CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point was surpassed showing promising activity of this bevacizumab/temozolomide combination with a favourable toxicity profile. Response and OS were significantly higher in BRAF wild-type patients.

Small Bowel Bacterial Overgrowth is found in 71% of IBS patients and associated symptoms respond wel to Rifaximin in a phase IV trial

Background: The prevalence of small intestinal bowel bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) ranges from 43% to 78% as determined by the lactulose hydrogen breath (LHBT) test. Although rifaximine, a non-absorbable antibiotic, has been able to decrease global IBS symptoms as well as bloating in placebo-controlled randomized trials, these results were not repeated in phase IV studies in daily clinical practice. Aim: To assess the prevalence of SIBO in an IBS cohort and to evaluate the treatment response in the IBS cohort affected by SIBO. Methods: Enrolled patients were diagnosed with IBS using the following criteria: fulfillment of the Rome III criteria, absence of alarm symptoms (anemia, weight loss, nocturnal symptoms etc), normal fecal calproectin, normal endoscopic workup including histology. Celiac disease was excluded by serology and/or duodenal biopsy. All patients underwent lactulose hydrogen breath testing (LHBT) for SIBO diagnosis. Patients with SIBO were treated with rifaximine tablets (400mg twice daily for 14 days). Both before and at week 6 after rifaximin treatment, patients completed a questionnaire, where the following criteria were assessed individually using 11-point Likert scales: the bloating, flatulence, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and overall well-being. Results: Hundred-fifty IBS patients were enrolled (76% female, mean age 44 ± 16 years), of whom 106 (71%) were diagnosed with SIBO and consequently treated with rifaximine. Rifaximine treatment significantly reduced the following symptoms as assessed by the symptom questionnaire: bloating (5.5 ± 2.6 before vs. 3.6 ± 2.7 after treatment, p <0.001), flatulence (5 ± 2.7 vs. 4 ± 2.7, p = 0.015), diarrhea (2.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2 ± 2.4, p = 0.005), abdominal pain (4.8 ± 2.7 vs. 3.3 ± 2.5, p <0.001) and resulted in improved overall well-being (3.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2.7 ± 2.3, p <0.001). Thirteen of the 106 treated patients were lost to follow-up (12%). The LHBT was repeated 2-4 weeks after rifaximine treatment in 65/93 (70%) patients. Eradication of SIBO was documented in 85% of all patients (55/65), whereas 15% of patients (10/65) tested positive for SIBO as determined by the LHBT testing. Conclusions: The results of our phase IV trial indicate that a high proportion of IBS patients tested positive for SIBO. IBS symptoms (bloating, flatulence, diarrhea, pain, overall well-being) were significantly diminished following a 2-week treatment with rifaximine. These results support the previous findings of randomized controlled trials that the presence of SIBO is associated with symptom generation in IBS patients and that reduction and/or elimination of SIBO may help to alleviate IBSassociated symptoms.

Treatment rationale and study design for a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus best supportive care immediately following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment.