Explore the vast range of titles available.

Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is effective in metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This study reports on the safety and efficacy of the docetaxel-based triplet FLOT (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) as a perioperative therapy for patients with locally advanced, resectable tumours. In this controlled, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we randomly assigned 716 patients with histologically-confirmed advanced clinical stage cT2 or higher or nodal positive stage (cN+), or both, resectable tumours, with no evidence of distant metastases, via central interactive web-based-response system, to receive either three pre-operative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 plus either 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as continuous intravenous infusion or 1250 mg/m2 capecitabine orally on days 1 to 21 (ECF/ECX; control group) or four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 docetaxel, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin and 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil as 24-h infusion on day 1 (FLOT; experimental group). The primary outcome of the trial was overall survival (superiority) analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01216644. Between Aug 8, 2010, and Feb 10, 2015, 716 patients were randomly assigned to treatment in 38 German hospitals or with practice-based oncologists. 360 patients were assigned to ECF/ECX and 356 patients to FLOT. Overall survival was increased in the FLOT group compared with the ECF/ECX group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.63 to 0·94]; median overall survival, 50 months [38·33 to not reached] vs 35 months [27·35 to 46·26]). The number of patients with related serious adverse events (including those occurring during hospital stay for surgery) was similar in the two groups (96 [27%] in the ECF/ECX group vs 97 [27%] in the FLOT group), as was the number of toxic deaths (two [<1%] in both groups). Hospitalisation for toxicity occurred in 94 patients (26%) in the ECF/ECX group and 89 patients (25%) in the FLOT group. In locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, perioperative FLOT improved overall survival compared with perioperative ECF/ECX. The German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe), Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai, and Stiftung Leben mit Krebs Foundation.

In women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had previously received HER2-targeted therapy, tucatinib, a new selective inhibitor of the HER2 tyrosine kinase, was added to trastuzumab and capecitabine and compared with trastuzumab and capecitabine plus placebo. Progression-free survival at 1 year was 33% with tucatinib and 12% with placebo.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab added to chemotherapy as first line (primary) treatment for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.DesignRandomised, double blind, placebo controlled, phase 3 study.Setting146 medical centres across Asia, Europe, and North America, between 13 December 2018 and 28 February 2023.Participants1657 patients aged ≥18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status, who had not received systemic anticancer therapy for advanced disease.InterventionsPatients were randomly (1:1) assigned to receive either tislelizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every three weeks in combination with chemotherapy (investigator’s choice of oxaliplatin and capecitabine, or cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) and stratified by region, PD-L1 expression, presence or absence of peritoneal metastases, and investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was overall survival, both in patients with a PD-L1 tumour area positivity (TAP) score of ≥5% and in all randomised patients. Safety was assessed in all those who received at least one dose of study treatment.ResultsOf 1657 patients screened between 13 December 2018 and 9 February 2021, 660 were ineligible due to not meeting the eligibility criteria, withdrawal of consent, adverse events, or other reasons. Overall, 997 were randomly assigned to receive tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (n=501) or placebo plus chemotherapy (n=496). Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy showed statistically significant improvements in overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TAP score of ≥5% (median 17.2 months v 12.6 months; hazard ratio 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.94); P=0.006 (interim analysis)) and in all randomised patients (median 15.0 months v 12.9 months; hazard ratio 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92); P=0.001 (final analysis)). Grade 3 or worse treatment related adverse events were observed in 54% (268/498) of patients in the tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm versus 50% (246/494) in the placebo plus chemotherapy arm.ConclusionsTislelizumab added to chemotherapy as primary treatment for advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma provided superior overall survival with a manageable safety profile versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TAP score of ≥5%, and in all randomised patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03777657

Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer. This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13. Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37–60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6–59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7–44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63–1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30–44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58–0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6–35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0–23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8–46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0–23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (<1%) patient had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients in the observation group. No deaths were deemed to be treatment related. Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. Cancer Research UK and Roche.

This analysis involving patients with stage III colon cancer pooled the findings of six clinical trials regarding the effect of adjuvant-therapy duration on disease-free survival. The results varied according to drug regimen and disease subgroup.

The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m2 oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5–31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7–27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3–4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3–4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Research UK.

The optimal perioperative chemotherapeutic regimen for locally advanced gastric cancer remains undefined. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of perioperative and postoperative S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) compared with postoperative capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer undergoing D2 gastrectomy. We did this open-label, phase 3, superiority and non-inferiority, randomised trial at 27 hospitals in China. We recruited antitumour treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with historically confirmed cT4a N+ M0 or cT4b Nany M0 gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, with Karnofsky performance score of 70 or more. Patients undergoing D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via an interactive web response system, stratified by participating centres and Lauren classification, to receive adjuvant CapOx (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice a day), adjuvant SOX (eight postoperative cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day one of each 21 day cycle plus oral S-1 40–60 mg twice a day), or perioperative SOX (intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day one of each 21 day plus oral S-1 40–60 mg twice a day for three cycles preoperatively and five cycles postoperatively followed by three cycles of S-1 monotherapy). The primary endpoint, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, is 3-year disease-free survival to assess the superiority of perioperative-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx and the non-inferiority (hazard ratio non-inferiority margin of 1·33) of adjuvant-SOX compared with adjuvant-CapOx. Safety analysis were done in patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01534546. Between Aug 15, 2012, and Feb 28, 2017, 1094 patients were screened and 1022 (93%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, of whom 345 (34%) patients were assigned to the adjuvant-CapOx, 340 (33%) patients to the adjuvant-SOX group, and 337 (33%) patients to the perioperative-SOX group. 3-year disease-free survival was 51·1% (95% CI 45·5–56·3) in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 56·5% (51·0–61·7) in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 59·4% (53·8–64·6) in the perioperative-SOX group. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0·77 (95% CI 0·61–0·97; Wald p=0·028) for the perioperative-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group and 0·86 (0·68–1·07; Wald p=0·17) for the adjuvant-SOX group compared with the adjuvant-CapOx group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events was neutropenia (32 [12%] of 258 patients in the adjuvant-CapOx group, 21 [8%] of 249 patients in the adjuvant-SOX group, and 30 [10%] of 310 patients in the perioperative-SOX group). Serious adverse events were reported in seven (3%) of 258 patients in adjuvant-CapOx group, two of which were related to treatment; eight (3%) of 249 patients in adjuvant-SOX group, two of which were related to treatment; and seven (2%) of 310 patients in perioperative-SOX group, four of which were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Perioperative-SOX showed a clinically meaningful improvement compared with adjuvant-CapOx in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer who had D2 gastrectomy; adjuvant-SOX was non-inferior to adjuvant-CapOx in these patients. Perioperative-SOX could be considered a new treatment option for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. National Key Research and Development Program of China, Beijing Scholars Program 2018–2024, Peking University Clinical Scientist Program, Taiho, Sanofi-Aventis, and Hengrui Pharmaceutical. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The antibody–drug conjugate trastuzumab emtansine is indicated for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. Approval of this drug was based on progression-free survival and interim overall survival data from the phase 3 EMILIA study. In this report, we present a descriptive analysis of the final overall survival data from that trial. EMILIA was a randomised, international, open-label, phase 3 study of men and women aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a hierarchical, dynamic randomisation scheme and an interactive voice response system to trastuzumab emtansine (3·6 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) or control (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 self-administered orally twice daily on days 1–14 on each 21-day cycle, plus lapatinib 1250 mg orally once daily on days 1–21). Randomisation was stratified by world region (USA vs western Europe vs or other), number of previous chemotherapy regimens for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease (0 or 1 vs >1), and disease involvement (visceral vs non-visceral). The coprimary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (per independent review committee assessment) and overall survival. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, with patients analysed according to the treatment actually received. On May 30, 2012, the study protocol was amended to allow crossover from control to trastuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis crossed the prespecified overall survival efficacy boundary. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00829166. Between Feb 23, 2009, and Oct 13, 2011, 991 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either trastuzumab emtansine (n=495) or capecitabine and lapatinib (control; n=496). In this final descriptive analysis, median overall survival was longer with trastuzumab emtansine than with control (29·9 months [95% CI 26·3–34·1] vs 25·9 months [95% CI 22·7–28·3]; hazard ratio 0·75 [95% CI 0·64–0·88]). 136 (27%) of 496 patients crossed over from control to trastuzumab emtansine after the second interim overall survival analysis (median follow-up duration 24·1 months [IQR 19·5–26·1]). Of those patients originally randomly assigned to trastuzumab emtansine, 254 (51%) of 495 received capecitabine and 241 [49%] of 495 received lapatinib (separately or in combination) after study drug discontinuation. In the safety population (488 patients treated with capecitabine plus lapatinib, 490 patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine), fewer grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred with trastuzumab emtansine (233 [48%] of 490) than with capecitabine plus lapatinib control treatment (291 [60%] of 488). In the control group, the most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (103 [21%] of 488 patients) followed by palmar–plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (87 [18%]), and vomiting (24 [5%]). The safety profile of trastuzumab emtansine was similar to that reported previously; the most frequently reported grade 3 or worse adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine group were thrombocytopenia (70 [14%] of 490), increased aspartate aminotransferase levels (22 [5%]), and anaemia (19 [4%]). Nine patients died from adverse events; five of these deaths were judged to be related to treatment (two in the control group [coronary artery disease and multiorgan failure] and three in the trastuzumab emtansine group [metabolic encephalopathy, neutropenic sepsis, and acute myeloid leukaemia]). This descriptive analysis of final overall survival in the EMILIA trial shows that trastuzumab emtansine improved overall survival in patients with previously treated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer even in the presence of crossover treatment. The safety profile was similar to that reported in previous analyses, reaffirming trastuzumab emtansine as an efficacious and tolerable treatment in this patient population. F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Despite therapeutic advances in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, resistance to trastuzumab inevitably develops. In the PHOEBE study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pyrotinib (an irreversible pan-HER inhibitor) plus capecitabine after previous trastuzumab. This is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 29 hospitals in China. Patients with pathologically confirmed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, aged 18–70 years, who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and had been previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral pyrotinib 400 mg or lapatinib 1250 mg once daily plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 of each 21-day cycle. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive web-response system with a block size of four or six and stratified by hormone receptor status and previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to masked independent central review. Efficacy and safety were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. Results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03080805. Between July 31, 2017, and Oct 30, 2018, 267 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 134 patients received pyrotinib plus capecitabine and 132 received lapatinib plus capecitabine. At data cutoff of the interim analysis on March 31, 2019, median progression-free survival was significantly longer with pyrotinib plus capecitabine (12·5 months [95% CI 9·7–not reached]) than with lapatinib plus capecitabine (6·8 months [5·4–8·1]; hazard ratio 0·39 [95% CI 0·27–0·56]; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [31%] in the pyrotinib group vs 11 [8%] in the lapatinib group) and hand–foot syndrome (22 [16%] vs 20 [15%]). Serious adverse events were reported for 14 (10%) patients in the pyrotinib group and 11 (8%) patients in the lapatinib group. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the pyrotinib group and one sudden death in the lapatinib group was considered treatment related. Pyrotinib plus capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival compared with that for lapatinib plus capecitabine, with manageable toxicity, and can be considered an alternative treatment option for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after trastuzumab and chemotherapy. Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and National Key R&D Program of China. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072. Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6–12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3–13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7–10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6–12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10–1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Amgen.