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

Concomitant Cisplatin and Hyperfractionated Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: 10-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Phase III Trial (SAKK 10/94)

To compare the long-term outcome of treatment with concomitant cisplatin and hyperfractionated radiotherapy versus treatment with hyperfractionated radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer.

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.

Predictors of severe late radiotherapy-related toxicity after hyperfractionated radiotherapy with or without concomitant cisplatin in locally advanced head and neck cancer. Secondary retrospective analysis of a randomized phase III trial (SAKK 10/94)

This secondary analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for severe late radiotherapy (RT)-related toxicity after treatment with hyperfractionated RT +/- concomitant cisplatin in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

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.

Physical examination during chemoradiation predicts outcome of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Secondary results of a randomized phase III trial (SAKK 10/94)

OBJECTIVES To analyze the prognostic value of clinical tumor response during chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS The locoregional response at 50.4Gy was assessed by physical examination (PE) in patients treated within the randomized trial SAKK 10/94 using hyperfractionated radiotherapy (RT), median total dose 74.4Gy with or without cisplatin 20mg/m(2) chemotherapy on 5 consecutive days during weeks 1 and 5 or 6 of RT. Response was classified as a complete response (CR), complete response with uncertainty (Cru), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) due to any cause. Secondary endpoints included locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards (PH) models were applied to analyze the associations between survival endpoints and clinical tumor response. RESULTS A total of 136, 131 and 97 patients were evaluable for response at the primary tumor, lymph nodes and both sites combined, respectively. At 50.4Gy 57/136 (42%), 46/131 (35%) and 21/97 (22%) patients had a good response (CR/Cru vs. PR/SD) at the primary tumor, the lymph nodes, and both sites combined, respectively. The median follow-up times were 11.4, 9.6 and 11.4years for the three groups. Good responses were all significantly associated with improved TTF, LRRFS, DMFS and OS in univariate analysis whereas good response at the primary tumor and lymph nodes remained significantly associated with TTF and OS after multivariate Cox PH models. CONCLUSIONS Locoregional response at 50.4Gy was identified as predictor of oncologic outcome. PE during treatment should not be underestimated in clinical practice.

Exemestane Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer: NCIC CTG MA.27—A Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial

PURPOSE In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor exemestane is partially non-cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease-free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety. RESULTS In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease-free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms. CONCLUSION This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Impact of weight loss on survival after chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: secondary results of a randomized phase III trial (SAKK 10/94).

BACKGROUND To analyze the impact of weight loss before and during chemoradiation on survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. METHODS From 07/1994-07/2000 a total of 224 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were randomized to either hyperfractionated radiation therapy alone or the same radiation therapy combined with two cycles of concomitant cisplatin. The primary endpoint was time to any treatment failure (TTF); secondary endpoints were locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Patient weight was measured 6 months before treatment, at treatment start and treatment end. RESULTS The proportion of patients with >5% weight loss was 32% before, and 51% during treatment, and the proportion of patients with >10% weight loss was 12% before, and 17% during treatment. After a median follow-up of 9.5 years (range, 0.1 - 15.4 years) weight loss before treatment was associated with decreased TTF, LRRFS, DMFS, cancer specific survival and OS in a multivariable analysis. However, weight loss during treatment was not associated with survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Weight loss before and during chemoradiation was commonly observed. Weight loss before but not during treatment was associated with worse survival.