Explore the vast range of titles available.

The anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab has shown potent antitumour activity at different doses and schedules in patients with melanoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks in patients with ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma. In an open-label, international, multicentre expansion cohort of a phase 1 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced melanoma whose disease had progressed after at least two ipilimumab doses were randomly assigned with a computer-generated allocation schedule (1:1 final ratio) to intravenous pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1) by independent central review. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set (all treated patients with measurable disease at baseline). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01295827. 173 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg (n=89) or 10 mg/kg (n=84). Median follow-up duration was 8 months. ORR was 26% at both doses—21 of 81 patients in the 2 mg/kg group and 20 of 76 in the 10 mg/kg group (difference 0%, 95% CI −14 to 13; p=0·96). Treatment was well tolerated, with similar safety profiles in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups and no drug-related deaths. The most common drug-related adverse events of any grade in the 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg groups were fatigue (29 [33%] vs 31 [37%]), pruritus (23 [26%] vs 16 [19%]), and rash (16 [18%] vs 15 [18%]). Grade 3 fatigue, reported in five (3%) patients in the 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab group, was the only drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse event reported in more than one patient. The results suggest that pembrolizumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks might be an effective treatment in patients for whom there are few effective treatment options. Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is characterized by extensive telangiectasias and arteriovenous malformations. The primary clinical manifestation is epistaxis that results in iron-deficiency anemia and reduced health-related quality of life. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide for the treatment of HHT. We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive pomalidomide at a dose of 4 mg daily or matching placebo for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline through week 24 in the Epistaxis Severity Score (a validated bleeding score in HHT; range, 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse bleeding). A reduction of 0.71 points or more is considered clinically significant. A key secondary outcome was the HHT-specific quality-of-life score (range, 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating more limitations). The trial was closed to enrollment in June 2023 after a planned interim analysis met a prespecified threshold for efficacy. A total of 144 patients underwent randomization; 95 patients were assigned to receive pomalidomide and 49 to receive placebo. The baseline mean (±SD) Epistaxis Severity Score was 5.0±1.5, a finding consistent with moderate-to-severe epistaxis. At 24 weeks, the mean difference between the pomalidomide group and the placebo group in the change from baseline in the Epistaxis Severity Score was -0.94 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.57 to -0.31; P = 0.004). The mean difference in the changes in the HHT-specific quality-of-life score between the groups was -1.4 points (95% CI, -2.6 to -0.3). Adverse events that were more common in the pomalidomide group than in the placebo group included neutropenia, constipation, and rash. Among patients with HHT, pomalidomide treatment resulted in a significant, clinically relevant reduction in epistaxis severity. No unexpected safety signals were identified. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; PATH-HHT Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03910244).

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation is a hallmark of endocrine therapy-resistant, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This phase 3 study assessed the efficacy of the pan-PI3K inhibitor buparlisib plus fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer, including an evaluation of the PI3K pathway activation status as a biomarker for clinical benefit. The BELLE-2 trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor (HER2)-negative inoperable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer whose disease had progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor treatment and had received up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease were included. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive voice response technology (block size of 6) on day 15 of cycle 1 to receive oral buparlisib (100 mg/day) or matching placebo, starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Patients were assigned randomisation numbers with a validated interactive response technology; these numbers were linked to different treatment groups which in turn were linked to treatment numbers. PI3K status in tumour tissue was determined via central laboratory during a 14-day run-in phase. Randomisation was stratified by PI3K pathway activation status (activated vs non-activated vs and unknown) and visceral disease status (present vs absent). Patients, investigators, local radiologists, study team, and anyone involved in the study were masked to the identity of the treatment until unblinding. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in the total population, in patients with known (activated or non-activated) PI3K pathway status, and in PI3K pathway-activated patients. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment according to the treatment they received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01610284, and is currently ongoing but not recruiting participants. Between Sept 7, 2012, and Sept 10, 2014, 1147 patients from 267 centres in 29 countries were randomly assigned to receive buparlisib (n=576) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n=571). In the total patient population (n=1147), median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·8–7·8) in the buparlisib group versus 5·0 months (4·0–5·2) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·67–0·89]; one-sided p=0·00021). In patients with known PI3K status (n=851), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–7·0) in the buparlisib group vs 4·5 months (3·3–5·0) in the placebo group (HR 0·80 [95% CI 0·68–0·94]; one-sided p=0·0033). In PI3K pathway-activated patients (n=372), median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 4·9–7·1) in the buparlisib group versus 4·0 months (3·1–5·2) in the placebo group (HR 0·76 [0·60–0·97], one-sided p=0·014). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the buparlisib group versus the placebo group were increased alanine aminotransferase (146 [25%] of 573 patients vs six [1%] of 570), increased aspartate aminotransferase (103 [18%] vs 16 [3%]), hyperglycaemia (88 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and rash (45 [8%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported in 134 (23%) of 573 patients in the buparlisib group compared with 90 [16%] of 570 patients in the placebo group; the most common serious adverse events (affecting ≥2% of patients) were increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [3%] of 573 vs one [<1%] of 570) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (14 [2%] vs one [<1%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The results from this study show that PI3K inhibition combined with endocrine therapy is effective in postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Use of more selective PI3K inhibitors, such as α-specific PI3K inhibitor, is warranted to further improve safety and benefit in this setting. No further studies are being pursued because of the toxicity associated with this combination. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0–2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23–4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97–4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference −8·61, 95% CI −14·49 to −2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI −2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (−3·18, 95% CI −8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (−4·11, 95% CI −9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23–1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07–1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66–0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3–4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. Cancer Research UK.

Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5–20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6–96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30–60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88–1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6–22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2–22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3–4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

Background: Pembrolizumab (P) is an anti-PD-1 antibody that blocks the interaction between programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on T-cells and PD-L1 and PD-L2 on tumour cells. A phase Ib trial of P plus chemotherapy was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy. Methods: Patients with advanced, metastatic solid tumours were enrolled onto one of six treatment arms. Pembrolizumab was given: with gemcitabine (G), G+docetaxel (D), G+nab-paclitaxel (NP), G+vinorelbine (V) or irinotecan (I) until progression or toxicity, or with liposomal doxorubicin (LD) for up to 15 cycles, progression or toxicity. Safety monitoring and response assessments were conducted. Results: Forty-nine patients were enrolled and treated. The most common adverse events were transaminitis, cytopenias, rash, diarrhoea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Arm 2 was closed due to poor accrual. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was determined for Arms 1, 3a, 4, 5 and 6. There were eight partial responses across multiple tumour types. Conclusions: Standard dose P can be safely combined with G, G+NP, G+V, I and LD. Efficacy was observed in multiple tumour types and evaluation to determine if response and duration of response are more robust than what would be expected for chemotherapy or immunotherapy alone requires further validation.

Since the 1990s, fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy has significantly reduced the risk of tumour recurrence in patients with stage III colon cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to standard adjuvant oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy (FOLFOX4) in patients with stage III colon cancer improved disease-free survival (DFS). For this open-label, randomised phase 3 study done in nine European countries, we enrolled patients through an interactive voice response system to the central randomisation centre, with a central stratified permuted block randomisation procedure. We randomly assigned patients with resected (R0) stage III disease (1:1) to receive 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 twice a week with or without cetuximab. Patients were stratified by N-status (N1 vs N2), T-status (T1-3 vs T4), and obstruction or perforation status (no obstruction and no perforation vs obstruction or perforation or both). A protocol amendment (applied in June, 2008, after 2096 patients had been randomly assigned to treatment-restricted enrolment to patients with tumours wild-type at codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 of the KRAS gene (KRAS exon 2 wild-type). The primary endpoint was DFS. Analysis was intention to treat in all patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2005-003463-23. Between Dec 22, 2005, and Nov 5, 2009, 2559 patients from 340 sites in Europe were randomly assigned. Of these patients, 1602 had KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours (intention-to-treat population), 791 in the FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab group and 811 in the FOLFOX4 group. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 3·2–3·4). In the experimental and control groups, DFS was similar in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·05; 95% CI 0·85–1·29; p=0·66), and in patients with KRAS exon 2/BRAF wild-type (n=984, HR 0·99; 95% CI 0·76–1·28) or KRAS exon 2-mutated tumours (n=742, HR 1·06; 95% CI 0·82–1·37). We noted heterogeneous responses to the addition of cetuximab in preplanned subgroup analyses. Grade 3 or 4 acne-like rash (in 209 of 785 patients [27%] vs four of 805 [<1%]), diarrhoea (113 [14%] vs 70 [9%]), mucositis (63 [8%] vs 10 [1%]), and infusion-related reactions (55 [7%] vs 30 [4%]) were more frequent in patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab than in those patients who received FOLFOX4 alone. The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 did not improve DFS compared with FOLFOX4 alone in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resected stage III colon cancer. This trial cannot conclude on the benefit of cetuximab in the studied population, but the heterogeneity of response suggests that further investigation of the role of FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab in specific patient subgroups is warranted. Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD), Merck KGaA, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) frequently result in cutaneous immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Although the majority of these events are mild-to-moderate in severity, up to 5% are severe, which may lead to morbidity and dose interruption or discontinuation of ICI therapy. In addition, up to 25% of dermatologic IrAEs are corticosteroid-refractory or corticosteroid-dependent. These 2020 MASCC recommendations cover the diagnosis and management of cutaneous IrAEs with a focus on moderate-to-severe and corticosteroid-resistant events. Although the usage of immune-suppressive therapy has been advocated in this setting, there is a lack of randomized clinical trial data to provide a compelling level of evidence of its therapeutic benefit.

Findings of small studies have suggested that short treatments with anti-CD3 monoclonal antibodies that are mutated to reduce Fc receptor binding preserve β-cell function and decrease insulin needs in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the safety and efficacy of one such antibody, teplizumab. In this 2-year trial, patients aged 8–35 years who had been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes for 12 weeks or fewer were enrolled and treated at 83 clinical centres in North America, Europe, Israel, and India. Participants were allocated (2:1:1:1 ratio) by an interactive telephone system, according to computer-generated block randomisation, to receive one of three regimens of teplizumab infusions (14-day full dose, 14-day low dose, or 6-day full dose) or placebo at baseline and at 26 weeks. The Protégé study is still underway, and patients and study staff remain masked through to study closure. The primary composite outcome was the percentage of patients with insulin use of less than 0·5 U/kg per day and glycated haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1C) of less than 6·5% at 1 year. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00385697. 763 patients were screened, of whom 516 were randomised to receive 14-day full-dose teplizumab (n=209), 14-day low-dose teplizumab (n=102), 6-day full-dose teplizumab (n=106), or placebo (n=99). Two patients in the 14-day full-dose group and one patient in the placebo group did not start treatment, so 513 patients were eligible for efficacy analyses. The primary outcome did not differ between groups at 1 year: 19·8% (41/207) in the 14-day full-dose group; 13·7% (14/102) in the 14-day low-dose group; 20·8% (22/106) in the 6-day full-dose group; and 20·4% (20/98) in the placebo group. 5% (19/415) of patients in the teplizumab groups were not taking insulin at 1 year, compared with no patients in the placebo group at 1 year (p=0·03). Across the four study groups, similar proportions of patients had adverse events (414/417 [99%] in the teplizumab groups vs 98/99 [99%] in the placebo group) and serious adverse events (42/417 [10%] vs 9/99 [9%]). The most common clinical adverse event in the teplizumab groups was rash (220/417 [53%] vs 20/99 [20%] in the placebo group). Findings of exploratory analyses suggest that future studies of immunotherapeutic intervention with teplizumab might have increased success in prevention of a decline in β-cell function (measured by C-peptide) and provision of glycaemic control at reduced doses of insulin if they target patients early after diagnosis of diabetes and children. MacroGenics, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and Eli Lilly.

Bacteraemia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. Our objective was to assess whether daily bathing in chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared with standard bathing practices would reduce bacteraemia in critically ill children. In an unmasked, cluster-randomised, two-period crossover trial, ten paediatric intensive-care units at five hospitals in the USA were randomly assigned a daily bathing routine for admitted patients older than 2 months, either standard bathing practices or using a cloth impregnated with 2% CHG, for a 6-month period. Units switched to the alternative bathing method for a second 6-month period. 6482 admissions were screened for eligibility. The primary outcome was an episode of bacteraemia. We did intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT00549393). 1521 admitted patients were excluded because their length of stay was less than 2 days, and 14 refused to participate. 4947 admissions were eligible for analysis. In the ITT population, a non-significant reduction in incidence of bacteraemia was noted with CHG bathing (3·52 per 1000 days, 95% CI 2·64–4·61) compared with standard practices (4·93 per 1000 days, 3·91–6·15; adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·42–1·20). In the PP population, incidence of bacteraemia was lower in patients receiving CHG bathing (3·28 per 1000 days, 2·27–4·58) compared with standard practices (4·93 per 1000 days, 3·91–6·15; aIRR 0·64, 0·42–0·98). No serious study-related adverse events were recorded, and the incidence of CHG-associated skin reactions was 1·2 per 1000 days (95% CI 0·60–2·02). Critically ill children receiving daily CHG bathing had a lower incidence of bacteraemia compared with those receiving a standard bathing routine. Furthermore, the treatment was well tolerated. Sage Products, US National Institutes of Health.