Explore the vast range of titles available.

The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.4 Gy and carboplatin and paclitaxel) plus surgery. Eligibility criteria included a primary tumor with a clinical stage of cT1 cN+, cT2-4a cN+, or cT2-4a cN0 disease, in which T indicates the size and extent of the tumor (higher numbers indicate a more advanced tumor), and N indicates the presence (N+) or absence (N0) of cancer spread to the lymph nodes, without evidence of metastatic spread. The primary end point was overall survival. From February 2016 through April 2020, we assigned 221 patients to the FLOT group and 217 patients to the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. With a median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival at 3 years was 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1 to 64.0) in the FLOT group and 50.7% (95% CI, 43.5 to 57.5) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival at 3 years was 51.6% (95% CI, 44.3 to 58.4) in the FLOT group and 35.0% (95% CI, 28.4 to 41.7) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). Among the patients who started the assigned treatment, grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 120 of 207 patients (58.0%) in the FLOT group and in 98 of 196 patients (50.0%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Serious adverse events were observed in 98 of 207 patients (47.3%) in the FLOT group and in 82 of 196 patients (41.8%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Mortality at 90 days after surgery was 3.1% in the FLOT group and 5.6% in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT led to improved survival among patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma as compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; ESOPEC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509286.).

In resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer, adding durvalumab to perioperative chemotherapy improved event-free survival and pathological complete response, with no major increase in high-grade adverse events.

Standard therapy for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is androgen-deprivation therapy, usually with docetaxel. A large, multinational, phase 3 trial assessed the addition of the androgen-receptor blocker darolutamide to standard therapy. At 4 years, survival was higher with darolutamide than with placebo (62.7% vs. 50.4%), with no major differences in the frequency of adverse events.

Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with -altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

There are few effective treatment options for patients with recurrent or metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab showed antitumour activity and manageable toxicity in early-phase trials. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care therapy for the treatment of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study at 97 medical centres in 20 countries. Patients with head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma that progressed during or after platinum-containing treatment for recurrent or metastatic disease (or both), or whose disease recurred or progressed within 3–6 months of previous multimodal therapy containing platinum for locally advanced disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four per stratum with an interactive voice-response and integrated web-response system to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks intravenously or investigator's choice of standard doses of methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab intravenously (standard-of-care group). The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in the as-treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02252042, and is no longer enrolling patients. Between Dec 24, 2014, and May 13, 2016, 247 patients were randomly allocated to pembrolizumab and 248 were randomly allocated to standard of care. As of May 15, 2017, 181 (73%) of 247 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 207 (83%) of 248 patients in the standard-of-care group had died. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·4–9·4) with pembrolizumab and 6·9 months (5·9–8·0) with standard of care (hazard ratio 0·80, 0·65–0·98; nominal p=0·0161). Fewer patients treated with pembrolizumab than with standard of care had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events (33 [13%] of 246 vs 85 [36%] of 234). The most common treatment-related adverse event was hypothyroidism with pembrolizumab (in 33 [13%] patients) and fatigue with standard of care (in 43 [18%]). Treatment-related death occurred in four patients treated with pembrolizumab (unspecified cause, large intestine perforation, malignant neoplasm progression, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome) and two patients treated with standard of care (malignant neoplasm progression and pneumonia). The clinically meaningful prolongation of overall survival and favourable safety profile of pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma support the further evaluation of pembrolizumab as a monotherapy and as part of combination therapy in earlier stages of disease. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 or PD-L1 have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with NSCLC who had already received platinum-based therapy. JAVELIN Lung 200 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 173 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 31 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC and disease progression after treatment with a platinum-containing doublet, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, an estimated life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with a stratified permuted block method with variable block length, to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1% of tumour cells), which was measured with the 73–10 assay, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed when roughly 337 events (deaths) had occurred in the PD-L1-positive population. Efficacy was analysed in all PD-L1-positive patients (ie, PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of tumour cells) randomly assigned to study treatment (the primary analysis population) and then in all randomly assigned patients through a hierarchical testing procedure. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02395172. Enrolment is complete, but the trial is ongoing. Between March 24, 2015, and Jan 23, 2017, 792 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive avelumab (n=396) or docetaxel (n=396). 264 participants in the avelumab group and 265 in the docetaxel group had PD-L1-positive tumours. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, median overall survival did not differ significantly between the avelumab and docetaxel groups (11·4 months [95% CI 9·4–13·9] vs 10·3 months [8·5–13·0]; hazard ratio 0·90 [96% CI 0·72–1·12]; one-sided p=0·16). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 251 (64%) of 393 avelumab-treated patients and 313 (86%) of 365 docetaxel-treated patients, including grade 3–5 events in 39 (10%) and 180 (49%) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (six patients [2%]) and increased lipase (four [1%]) in the avelumab group and neutropenia (51 [14%]), febrile neutropenia (37 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil counts (36 [10%]) in the docetaxel group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (9%) patients in the avelumab group and 75 (21%) in the docetaxel group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) participants in the avelumab group, two due to interstitial lung disease, one due to acute kidney injury, and one due to a combination of autoimmune myocarditis, acute cardiac failure, and respiratory failure. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 (4%) patients in the docetaxel group, three due to pneumonia, and one each due to febrile neutropenia, septic shock, febrile neutropenia with septic shock, acute respiratory failure, cardiovascular insufficiency, renal impairment, leucopenia with mucosal inflammation and pyrexia, infection, neutropenic infection, dehydration, and unknown causes. Compared with docetaxel, avelumab did not improve overall survival in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1-positive NSCLC, but had a favourable safety profile. Merck and Pfizer.

Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11–17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15–24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7–16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11–18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3–7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12–0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29–0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37–0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61–1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Perioperative FLOT (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) triplet chemotherapy is the standard of care for localised and resectable gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare a modified FLOT regimen (also known as TFOX) with FOLFOX as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. PRODIGE 51-FFCD-GASTFOX is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 96 medical centres in France. Eligible individuals were aged 18 years or older, had histologically confirmed, HER2-negative adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction that was locally advanced unresectable or metastatic and previously untreated, measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to receive FOLFOX (folinic acid 400 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, and 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 then 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 as a continuous 46 h infusion every 2 weeks) or TFOX (docetaxel 50 mg/m2, folinic acid 400 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 then 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 as a continuous 46 h infusion every 2 weeks). Randomisation was stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, tumour stage, tumour location, and pathological histological subtype. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (assessed in the intention-to-treat population), defined as time from randomisation to the first radiological or clinical progression (or both), or death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and objective response rate (defined as the proportion of patients with a best overall complete or partial response). Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. When the proportional hazards assumption was violated, the restricted mean survival time was used to estimate the treatment effect size. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03006432, and EudraCT, 2016–002331–16. Between Dec 19, 2016, and Dec 26, 2022, 507 patients were randomly assigned (254 to the TFOX group and 253 to the FOLFOX group [intention-to-treat population]). The median age was 64·2 years (IQR 56·7–70·8), and 399 (79%) participants were male and 108 (21%) were female. At median follow-up of 42·8 months (25·8–49·9), the median progression-free survival was 7·59 months (95% CI 7·06–7·95) in the TFOX group versus 5·98 months (5·65–6·97) in the FOLFOX group. The assumption of proportional hazards was violated (p=0·013); therefore, the 12-month restricted mean progression-free survival was calculated: 7·52 months (7·06–7·97) in the TFOX group versus 6·62 months (6·16–7·09) in the FOLFOX group (p=0·0072). The median overall survival was 15·08 months (13·70–16·72) in the TFOX group versus 12·65 months (10·94–14·00) in the FOLFOX group (proportional hazards assumption was confirmed; HR 0·82 [0·68–0·99]; p=0·048) and the objective response rate was 62·3% (56·0–68·3) versus 53·4% (47·0–59·8; p=0·045). The most common grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [15%] in the TFOX group vs 18 [7%] in the FOLFOX group), peripheral neuropathy (80 [32%] vs 49 [20%]), neutropenia (67 [27%] vs 44 [18%]), and fatigue (40 [16%] vs 20 [8%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66 (27%) participants in the TFOX group and 33 (13%) in the FOLFOX group. There were two (<1%) treatment-related deaths in the TFOX group (one due to septic shock and one due to gastrointestinal perforation) and one (<1%) in the FOLFOX group (due to septic shock). The modified FLOT/TFOX regimen significantly improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with FOLFOX in previously untreated patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The modified FLOT/TFOX regimen might represent a new first-line treatment option for patients eligible for this docetaxel triplet chemotherapy. Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT) with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after previous treatment failure with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum based chemotherapy.DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting48 centres in China, 1 September 2023 to 31 December 2024.Participants137 adults (aged 18-75 years) with EGFR-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC after previous treatment failure with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum based chemotherapy.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sac-TMT (5 mg/kg) on days 1 and 15 of each four week cycle, or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of each three week cycle. Patients in the docetaxel group were permitted to crossover to sac-TMT treatment on disease progression.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was objective response rate as assessed by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC). The secondary endpoints included objective response rate assessed by the investigator; disease control rate, progression-free survival, time to response, and duration of response assessed by BIRC and the investigator; overall survival; and safety.Results137 patients were randomised to receive sac-TMT (n=91) or docetaxel (n=46). Median follow-up was 12.2 months at the data cut-off for efficacy (31 December 2024). BIRC assessed objective response rate was significantly higher in the sac-TMT group (45% (41/91)) v docetaxel (16% (7/45)), with a difference of 29% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 43%; one sided P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was longer with sac-TMT than with docetaxel assessed by BIRC (6.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; one sided P<0.001) and the investigator (7.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.23, 0.15 to 0.36; one sided P<0.001). The 12 month overall survival rate was 73% with sac-TMT and 54% with docetaxel (hazard ratio 0.49, 0.27 to 0.88; one sided P=0.007). After adjustment for crossover using the rank-preserving structural failure time model, sac-TMT also showed improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.36, 0.20 to 0.66). Grade ≥3 treatment related adverse events were less frequent with sac-TMT than with docetaxel (56% v 72%), with no new safety signals identified.ConclusionsSac-TMT showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with docetaxel, with a manageable safety profile in patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631262.

Background 8MW0511 is a novel, long-acting recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) produced by the fusion of the N-terminus of highly active modified G-CSF with the C-terminus of human serum albumin (HSA). Current G-CSF treatments require frequent administration and have limitations in efficacy and convenience, highlighting the need for a longer-acting alternative with fewer injections and improved outcomes. Here, we report a phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of 8MW0511 with those of the approved PEG-rhG-CSF. Methods Patients with breast cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive either 8MW0511 or PEG-rhG-CSF after four cycles of standard chemotherapy with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide, with or without doxorubicin. The primary efficacy endpoint was to evaluate the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) between 8MW0511 and PEG-rhG-CSF during the first cycle. Results Eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either 8MW0511 (n = 328) or PEG-rhG-CSF (n = 164). During the first cycle, the average DSN was 0.24 days for the 8MW0511 group and 0.25 days for the PEG-rhG-CSF group. The mean difference in DSN [-0.02 days (95% Confidence interval: -0.12, 0.08)] met the primary study endpoint. During cycles 2–4, the DSN results were consistent with those of cycle 1. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia was lower in the 8MW0511 group than in the PEG-rhG-CSF group across all chemotherapy cycles. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) across all cycles showed no significant difference between the two groups. Other efficacy endpoints and adverse events were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions The study findings confirm that 8MW0511 is not inferior to PEG-rhG-CSF in terms of efficacy and shows comparable safety profiles. Additionally, 8MW0511 has the potential to significantly decrease the duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, along with a reduction in the occurrence of FN and severe neutropenia.