Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients hospitalized with decompensated cirrhosis and a serum albumin level of less than 30 g per liter were randomly assigned to daily albumin infusions to raise the albumin level to 30 g per liter or higher or to standard care. Albumin infusions did not reduce the incidences of infection, kidney dysfunction, and death. More serious adverse events occurred in the albumin group.

Preferred neoadjuvant regimens for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) include anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and taxane-based chemotherapy. IMpassion031 compared efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus placebo combined with nab-paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for early-stage TNBC. This double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study enrolled patients in 75 academic and community sites in 13 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated stage II–III histologically documented TNBC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy plus intravenous atezolizumab at 840 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. Chemotherapy comprised of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m2 every 2 weeks for 8 weeks, which was then followed by surgery. Stratification was by clinical breast cancer stage and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Co-primary endpoints were pathological complete response in all-randomised (ie, all randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population) and PD-L1-positive (ie, patients with PD-L1-expressing tumour infiltrating immune cells covering ≥1% of tumour area) populations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03197935), Eudra (CT2016-004734-22), and the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (JapicCTI-173630), and is ongoing. Between July 7, 2017, and Sept 24, 2019, 455 patients were recruited and assessed for eligibility. Of the 333 eligible patients, 165 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 168 to placebo plus chemotherapy. At data cutoff (April 3, 2020), median follow-up was 20·6 months (IQR 8·7–24·9) in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·8 months (8·1–24·5) in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Pathological complete response was documented in 95 (58%, 95% CI 50–65) patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 69 (41%, 34–49) patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 17%, 95% CI 6–27; one-sided p=0·0044 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the PD-L1-positive population, pathological complete response was documented in 53 (69%, 95% CI 57–79) of 77 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group versus 37 (49%, 38–61) of 75 patients in the placebo plus chemotherapy group (rate difference 20%, 95% CI 4–35; one-sided p=0·021 [significance boundary 0·0184]). In the neoadjuvant phase, grade 3–4 adverse events were balanced and treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 37 (23%) and 26 (16%) patients, with one patient per group experiencing an unrelated grade 5 adverse event (traffic accident in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and pneumonia in the placebo plus chemotherapy group). In patients with early-stage TNBC, neoadjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response rates with an acceptable safety profile. F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Addition of the anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer significantly prolonged progression-free survival, particularly among those with PD-L1–positive tumors.

Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2–23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4–23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0–21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0–18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2–7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4–5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54–0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloid administration conferred no benefit, as compared with crystalloids alone, with respect to mortality at 28 or 90 days. Post hoc analysis suggested a possible benefit in patients with septic shock. For decades, human albumin has been administered to patients to provide adequate oncotic pressure and intravascular volume. 1 In 1998, however, a report from the Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers indicated that the administration of albumin may be potentially harmful in critically ill patients, as compared with the administration of crystalloid solutions. 2 Subsequent meta-analyses reported contradictory findings. 3 , 4 To clarify this issue, a large, double-blind, randomized trial (the Saline versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation [SAFE] study) 5 was conducted, in which 4% albumin solution was compared with normal saline as fluid replacement in critically ill patients, with results indicating that albumin administration was . . .

Immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has shown promising efficacy across many different tumour types. We report the prespecified second interim overall survival analysis of the phase 3 IMpassion130 study assessing the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 246 academic centres and community oncology practices in 41 countries, patients aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated, histologically documented, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block method (block size of four) and an interactive voice–web response system. Randomisation was stratified by previous taxane use, liver metastases, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. Patients received atezolizumab 840 mg or matching placebo intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of every 28-day cycle and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours (tumours with ≥1% PD-L1 expression). The final progression-free survival results were previously reported at the first interim overall survival analysis. The prespecified statistical testing hierarchy meant that overall survival in the subgroup of PD-L1 immune cell-positive patients could only be formally tested if overall survival was significantly different between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02425891. Between June 23, 2015, and May 24, 2017, 902 patients were enrolled, of whom 451 were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel and 451 were assigned to receive placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (the intention-to-treat population). Six patients from each group did not receive treatment. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff Jan 2, 2019), median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 9·6–22·8) in the atezolizumab group and 17·5 months (8·4–22·4) in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat patients was 21·0 months (95% CI 19·0–22·6) with atezolizumab and 18·7 months (16·9–20·3) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·72–1·02, p=0·078). In the exploratory overall survival analysis in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive tumours, median overall survival was 25·0 months (95% CI 19·6–30·7) with atezolizumab versus 18·0 months (13·6–20·1) with placebo (stratified HR 0·71, 0·54–0·94]). As of Sept 3, 2018 (the date up to which updated safety data were available), the most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [8%] of 453 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 36 [8%] of 437 patients in the placebo group), peripheral neuropathy (25 [6%] vs 12 [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (22 [5%] vs 16 [4%]), and fatigue (17 [4%] vs 15 [3%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (<1%) patients in the atezolizumab group (autoimmune hepatitis related to atezolizumab [n=1] and septic shock related to nab-paclitaxel [n=1]) and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group (hepatic failure). No new treatment-related deaths have been reported since the primary clinical data cutoff date (April 17, 2018). Consistent with the first interim analysis, this second interim overall survival analysis of IMpassion130 indicates no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit with atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive disease. However, this positive result could not be formally tested due to the prespecified statistical testing hierarchy. For patients with PD-L1 immune cell-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is an important therapeutic option in a disease with high unmet need. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of nab-paclitaxel, cisplatin, and capecitabine (nab-TPC) with gemcitabine and cisplatin as an alternative first line treatment option for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.DesignPhase 3, open label, multicentre, randomised trial.SettingFour hospitals located in China between September 2019 and August 2022.ParticipantsAdults (≥18 years) with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.InterventionsPatients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with either nab-paclitaxel (200 g/m2 on day 1), cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1), and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice on days 1-14) or gemcitabine (1 g/m2 on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (80 mg/m2 on day 1).Main outcome measuresProgression-free survival was evaluated by the independent review committee as the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsThe median follow-up was 15.8 months in the prespecified interim analysis (31 October 2022). As assessed by the independent review committee, the median progression-free survival was 11.3 (95% confidence interval 9.7 to 12.9) months in the nab-TPC cohort compared with 7.7 (6.5 to 9.0) months in the gemcitabine and cisplatin cohort. The hazard ratio was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.73; P=0.002). The objective response rate in the nab-TPC cohort was 83% (34/41) versus 63% (25/40) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin cohort (P=0.05), and the duration of response was 10.8 months in the nab-TPC cohort compared with 6.9 months in the gemcitabine and cisplatin cohort (P=0.009). Treatment related grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including leukopenia (4/41 (10%) v 13/40 (33%); P=0.02), neutropenia (6/41 (15%) v 16/40 (40%); P=0.01), and anaemia (1/41 (2%) v 8/40 (20%); P=0.01), were higher in the gemcitabine and cisplatin cohort than in the nab-TPC cohort. No deaths related to treatment occurred in either treatment group. Survival and long term toxicity are still being evaluated with longer follow-up.ConclusionThe nab-TPC regimen showed a superior antitumoural efficacy and favourable safety profile compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Nab-TPC should be considered the standard first line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the benefits for overall survival.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900027112.

In this study from sub-Saharan Africa, children with severe febrile illness and impaired perfusion were randomly assigned to fluid-bolus therapy or no bolus. Albumin or saline boluses significantly increased 48-hour mortality in critically ill children with impaired perfusion. Rapid, early fluid resuscitation in patients with shock, a therapy that is aimed at the correction of hemodynamic abnormalities, is one component of goal-driven emergency care guidelines. This approach is widely endorsed by pediatric life-support training programs, which recommend the administration of up to 60 ml of isotonic fluid per kilogram of body weight within 15 minutes after the diagnosis of shock. 1 Children who do not have an adequate response to fluid resuscitation require intensive care for inotropic and ventilatory support. 1 Substantial improvements in the outcomes of pediatric septic shock have been attributed to this approach. 2 , 3 Nevertheless, evidence regarding . . .

Background Neoadjuvant dual human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) blockade with trastuzumab and pertuzumab plus paclitaxel leads to an overall pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 46%. Dual HER2 blockade with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and lapatinib plus nab-paclitaxel has shown efficacy in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. To test neoadjuvant effectiveness of this regimen, an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial was conducted comparing T-DM1, lapatinib, and nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and paclitaxel in patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Methods Stratification by estrogen receptor (ER) status occurred prior to randomization. Patients in the experimental arm received 6 weeks of targeted therapies (T-DM1 and lapatinib) followed by T-DM1 every 3 weeks, lapatinib daily, and nab-paclitaxel weekly for 12 weeks. In the standard arm, patients received 6 weeks of trastuzumab and pertuzumab followed by trastuzumab weekly, pertuzumab every 3 weeks, and paclitaxel weekly for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients with residual cancer burden (RCB) 0 or I. Key secondary objectives included pCR rate, safety, and change in tumor size at 6 weeks. Hypothesis-generating correlative assessments were also performed. Results The 30 evaluable patients were well-balanced in patient and tumor characteristics. The proportion of patients with RCB 0 or I was higher in the experimental arm (100% vs. 62.5% in the standard arm, p  = 0.0035). In the ER-positive subset, all patients in the experimental arm achieved RCB 0-I versus 25% in the standard arm ( p  = 0.0035). Adverse events were similar between the two arms. Conclusion In early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, the neoadjuvant treatment with T-DM1, lapatinib, and nab-paclitaxel was more effective than the standard treatment, particularly in the ER-positive cohort. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02073487 , February 27, 2014.

Platinum is recommended in combination with gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). We conduct a randomized phase 3, controlled, open-label trial to compare nab-paclitaxel/cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) in mTNBC patients (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02546934). 254 patients with untreated mTNBC randomly receive AP (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² on day 1, 8 and cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1) or GP (gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² on day 1, 8 and cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1) intravenously every 3 weeks until progression disease, intolerable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints are objective response rate (ORR), safety and overall survival (OS). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The median PFS is 9.8 months with AP as compared to 7.4 months with GP (stratified HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50–0.88; P  = 0.004). AP significantly increases ORR (81.1% vs . 56.3%, P  < 0.001) and prolongs OS (stratified HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.90; P  = 0.010) to GP. Of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, a significantly higher incidence of neuropathy in AP and thrombocytopenia in GP is noted. These findings warrant further assessment of adding novel agents to the nab-paclitaxel/platinum backbone due to its high potency for patients with mTNBC. Platinum agents, such as carboplatin and cisplatin, have been recommended in combination with gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here the authors report the results of a randomized phase 3 trial to compare the efficacy of first-line nab-paclitaxel/cisplatin to gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with TNBC.