Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

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.

Influence on Strength and Flexibility of a Swing Phase-Specific Hamstring Eccentric Program in Sprinters' General Preparation

Guex, KJ, Lugrin, V, Borloz, S, and Millet, GP. Influence on strength and flexibility of a swing phase-specific hamstring eccentric program in sprinters' general preparation. J Strength Cond Res 30(2): 525-532, 2016-Hamstring injuries are common in sprinters and mainly occur during the terminal swing phase. Eccentric training has been shown to reduce hamstring injury rate by improving several risk factors. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that an additional swing phase-specific hamstring eccentric training in well-trained sprinters performed at the commencement of the winter preparation is more efficient to improve strength, ratio, optimum angle, and flexibility than a similar program without hamstring eccentric exercises. Twenty sprinters were randomly allocated to an eccentric (n = 10) or a control group (n = 10). Both groups performed their usual track and field training throughout the study period. Sprinters in the eccentric group performed an additional 6-week hamstring eccentric program, which was specific to the swing phase of the running cycle (eccentric high-load open-chain kinetic movements covering the whole hamstring length-tension relationship preformed at slow to moderate velocity). Isokinetic and flexibility measurements were performed before and after the intervention. The eccentric group increased hamstring peak torques in concentric at 60 degrees .s by 16% (p < 0.001) and at 240 degrees .s by 10% (p < 0.01), in eccentric at 30 degrees .s by 20% (p < 0.001) and at 120 degrees .s by 22% (p < 0.001), conventional and functional ratios by 12% (p < 0.001), and flexibility by 4 degrees (p < 0.01), whereas the control group increased hamstring peak torques only in eccentric at 30 degrees .s by 6% (p </= 0.05) and at 120 degrees .s by 6% (p < 0.01). It was concluded that an additional swing phase-specific hamstring eccentric training in sprinters seems to be crucial to address different risk factors for hamstring strain injuries, such as eccentric and concentric strength, hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio ratio, and flexibility.

p-Nitrobenzyloxycarbonyl (pNZ) as Temporary Na-Protecting Group for Mild Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis. Avoiding Diketopiperazine and Aspartimide Formation

p-Nitrobenzyloxycarbonyl was used as temporary protecting group for the -amino function in solid-phase peptide synthesis. The corresponding derivatives are solids, easy to be synthesized, and perform well in the solid-phase mode. pNZ is removed in practical neutral conditions in the presence of catalytic amounts of acid. They are orthogonal with the most common protecting groups used in peptide chemistry. They are specially useful in combination with Fmoc chemistry to overcome those side reactions associated with the used of the piperidine such DKP and aspartiimide formation. The flexibility of pNZ can be very useful for the preparation of libraries of small organic molecules.

Systematic evaluation of matrix effects in hydrophilic interaction chromatography versus reversed phase liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry.

Reversed phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) coupled to mass spectrometry (MS) is the gold standard technique in bioanalysis. However, hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC) could represent a viable alternative to RPLC for the analysis of polar and/or ionizable compounds, as it often provides higher MS sensitivity and alternative selectivity. Nevertheless, this technique can be also prone to matrix effects (ME). ME are one of the major issues in quantitative LC-MS bioanalysis. To ensure acceptable method performance (i.e., trueness and precision), a careful evaluation and minimization of ME is required. In the present study, the incidence of ME in HILIC-MS/MS and RPLC-MS/MS was compared for plasma and urine samples using two representative sets of 38 pharmaceutical compounds and 40 doping agents, respectively. The optimal generic chromatographic conditions in terms of selectivity with respect to interfering compounds were established in both chromatographic modes by testing three different stationary phases in each mode with different mobile phase pH. A second step involved the assessment of ME in RPLC and HILIC under the best generic conditions, using the post-extraction addition method. Biological samples were prepared using two different sample pre-treatments, i.e., a non-selective sample clean-up procedure (protein precipitation and simple dilution for plasma and urine samples, respectively) and a selective sample preparation, i.e., solid phase extraction for both matrices. The non-selective pretreatments led to significantly less ME in RPLC vs. HILIC conditions regardless of the matrix. On the contrary, HILIC appeared as a valuable alternative to RPLC for plasma and urine samples treated by a selective sample preparation. Indeed, in the case of selective sample preparation, the compounds influenced by ME were different in HILIC and RPLC, and lower and similar ME occurrence was generally observed in RPLC vs. HILIC for urine and plasma samples, respectively. The complementary of both chromatographic modes was also demonstrated, as ME was observed only scarcely for urine and plasma samples when selecting the most appropriate chromatographic mode.

When the non-contrast-enhanced phase is unnecessary in abdominal computed tomography scans? A retrospective analysis of 244 cases

Objective: To evaluate the necessity of the non contrast-enhanced phase in abdominal computed tomography scans. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study was developed, evaluating 244 consecutive abdominal computed tomography scans both with and without contrast injection. Initially, the contrast-enhanced images were analyzed (first analysis). Subsequently, the observers had access to the non-contrast-enhanced images for a second analysis. The primary and secondary diagnoses were established as a function of the clinical indications for each study (such as tumor staging, acute abdomen, investigation for abdominal collection and hepatocellular carcinoma, among others). Finally, the changes in the diagnoses resulting from the addition of the non-contrast-enhanced phase were evaluated. Results: Only one (0.4%; p > 0.999; non-statistically significant) out of the 244 reviewed cases had the diagnosis changed after the reading of non-contrast-enhanced images. As the secondary diagnoses are considered, 35 (14%) cases presented changes after the second analysis, as follows: nephrolithiasis (10%), steatosis (3%), adrenal nodule (0.7%) and cholelithiasis (0.3%). Conclusion: For the clinical indications of tumor staging, acute abdomen, investigation of abdominal collections and hepatocellular carcinoma, the non-contrast-enhanced phase can be excluded from abdominal computed tomography studies with no significant impact on the diagnosis.

Postoperative Adjuvant Lapatinib and Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Maintenance Lapatinib Monotherapy in High-Risk Patients With Resected Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lapatinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor/ErbB2 inhibitor, administered concomitantly with chemoradiotherapy and as maintenance monotherapy in patients with high-risk surgically treated squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage II to IVA SCCHN, with a surgical margin ≤ 5 mm and/or extracapsular extension, were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy (66 Gy total radiation dose and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) per day administered on days 1, 22, and 43) plus placebo or lapatinib (1,500 mg per day) before and during chemoradiotherapy, followed by 12 months of maintenance monotherapy. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled (lapatinib, n = 346; placebo, n = 342). With a median follow-up time of 35.3 months, the study ended early because of the apparent plateauing of disease-free survival (DFS) events. Median DFS assessed by an independent review committee was 53.6 months and not reached for lapatinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.43). Investigator-assessed results confirmed the independent review committee assessment. No significant differences in DFS by human papillomavirus status or overall survival were observed between treatment arms. Similar numbers of patients in both treatment arms experienced adverse events (AEs), with more patients in the lapatinib arm than the placebo arm experiencing serious AEs (48% v 40%, respectively). The most commonly observed treatment-related AEs were diarrhea and rash, both predominantly in the lapatinib arm. CONCLUSION: Addition of lapatinib to chemoradiotherapy and its use as long-term maintenance therapy does not offer any efficacy benefits and had additional toxicity compared with placebo in patients with surgically treated high-risk SCCHN.