Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a trial comparing enfortumab vedotin and a PD-1 inhibitor with chemotherapy in patients with untreated advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, progression-free and overall survival nearly doubled with the experimental treatment.

Patients with resectable lung cancer were assigned to neoadjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy and adjuvant pembrolizumab or placebo. Two-year event-free survival was 62.4% with pembrolizumab and 40.6% with placebo.

Cisplatin is an effective treatment for hepatoblastoma but often leads to lifelong irreversible hearing loss. The addition of sodium thiosulfate 6 hours after cisplatin administration preserved the antitumor effect and led to a lower risk of hearing loss (33% vs. 63%).

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.

Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide; or platinum–etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum–etoposide consisted of etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum–etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus the platinum–etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 269 to the platinum–etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59–0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5–14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3–11·2) in the platinum–etoposide group, with 34% (26·9–41·0) versus 25% (18·4–31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum–etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. AstraZeneca.

The ALK inhibitor crizotinib as first-line therapy was associated with a significantly better response rate, longer progression-free survival, and greater improvement in quality of life measures than standard chemotherapy in patients with ALK -positive lung cancer. Rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase ( ALK ) gene are present in 3 to 5% of non–small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). 1 , 2 They define a distinct subgroup of NSCLC that typically occurs in younger patients who have never smoked or have a history of light smoking and that has adenocarcinoma histologic characteristics. 3 – 5 Crizotinib is an oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of ALK, MET, and ROS1 kinases. 6 In phase 1 and 2 studies, crizotinib treatment resulted in objective tumor responses in approximately 60% of patients with ALK -positive NSCLC and in progression-free survival of 7 to 10 months. 7 – 9 In . . .

Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have high survival when treated with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Whether replacement of cisplatin with cetuximab—an antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor—can preserve high survival and reduce treatment toxicity is unknown. We investigated whether cetuximab would maintain a high proportion of patient survival and reduce acute and late toxicity. RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA and Canada. Eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma; American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition clinical categories T1–T2, N2a–N3 M0 or T3–T4, N0–N3 M0; Zubrod performance status 0 or 1; age at least 18 years; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either radiotherapy plus cetuximab or radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks, and patients were stratified by T category (T1–T2 vs T3–T4), N category (N0–N2a vs N2b–N3), Zubrod performance status (0 vs 1), and tobacco smoking history (≤10 pack-years vs >10 pack-years). Patients were assigned to receive either intravenous cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 5–7 days before radiotherapy initiation, followed by cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly for seven doses (total 2150 mg/m2), or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22 of radiotherapy (total 200 mg/m2). All patients received accelerated intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered at 70 Gy in 35 fractions over 6 weeks at six fractions per week (with two fractions given on one day, at least 6 h apart). The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1·45. Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby all patients meeting eligibility criteria are included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01302834. Between June 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 987 patients were enrolled, of whom 849 were randomly assigned to receive radiotherapy plus cetuximab (n=425) or radiotherapy plus cisplatin (n=424). 399 patients assigned to receive cetuximab and 406 patients assigned to receive cisplatin were subsequently eligible. After median follow-up duration of 4·5 years, radiotherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1·94; p=0·5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0·0163). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 77·9% (95% CI 73·4–82·5) in the cetuximab group versus 84·6% (80·6–88·6) in the cisplatin group. Progression-free survival was significantly lower in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 1·72, 95% CI 1·29–2·29; p=0·0002; 5-year progression-free survival 67·3%, 95% CI 62·4–72·2 vs 78·4%, 73·8–83·0), and locoregional failure was significantly higher in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (HR 2·05, 95% CI 1·35–3·10; 5-year proportions 17·3%, 95% CI 13·7–21·4 vs 9·9%, 6·9–13·6). Proportions of acute moderate to severe toxicity (77·4%, 95% CI 73·0–81·5 vs 81·7%, 77·5–85·3; p=0·1586) and late moderate to severe toxicity (16·5%, 95% CI 12·9–20·7 vs 20·4%, 16·4–24·8; p=0·1904) were similar between the cetuximab and cisplatin groups. For patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, radiotherapy plus cetuximab showed inferior overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy plus cisplatin. Radiotherapy plus cisplatin is the standard of care for eligible patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma. National Cancer Institute USA, Eli Lilly, and The Oral Cancer Foundation.

The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3–5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3–5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2–5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2–5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3–31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3–31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7–14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6–7·2]; p=0·0007). Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Cancer Research UK.

SummaryBackgroundFirst-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone. MethodsCASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, or platinum–etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80–100 mg/m 2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m 2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum–etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FindingsBetween March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and 269 to platinum–etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3–27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6–12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62–0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3–14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum–etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum–etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum–etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). InterpretationFirst-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum–etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum–etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FundingAstraZeneca.

In patients with urothelial carcinoma, the addition of nivolumab to platinum-based chemotherapy resulted in longer median overall survival than platinum-based chemotherapy alone (21.7 months vs. 18.9 months).