Explore the vast range of titles available.

Intensified systemic chemotherapy has the highest primary cure rate for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma but this comes with a cost of severe and potentially life long, persisting toxicities. With the new regimen of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD), we aimed to improve the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatment of advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma guided by PET after two cycles. This randomised, multicentre, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial was done in 233 trial sites across nine countries. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≤60 years) with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ie, Ann Arbor stage III/IV, stage II with B symptoms, and either one or both risk factors of large mediastinal mass and extranodal lesions). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four or six cycles (21-day intervals) of escalated doses of etoposide (200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1–3), doxorubicin (35 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and cyclophosphamide (1250 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and standard doses of bleomycin (10 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), vincristine (1·4 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), procarbazine (100 mg/m2 orally on days 1–7), and prednisone (40 mg/m2 orally on days 1–14; eBEACOPP) or BrECADD, guided by PET after two cycles. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Hierarchical coprimary objectives were to show (1) improved tolerability defined by treatment-related morbidity and (2) non-inferior efficacy defined by progression-free survival with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 6 percentage points of BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP. An additional test of superiority of progression-free survival was to be done if non-inferiority had been established. Analyses were done by intention to treat; the treatment-related morbidity assessment required documentation of at least one chemotherapy cycle. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02661503). Between July 22, 2016, and Aug 27, 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 749 were randomly assigned to BrECADD and 751 to eBEACOPP. 1482 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median age of patients was 31 years (IQR 24–42). 838 (56%) of 1482 patients were male and 644 (44%) were female. Most patients were White (1352 [91%] of 1482). Treatment-related morbidity was significantly lower with BrECADD (312 [42%] of 738 patients) than with eBEACOPP (430 [59%] of 732 patients; relative risk 0·72 [95% CI 0·65–0·80]; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 48 months, BrECADD improved progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (0·45–0·97; p=0·035); 4-year progression-free survival estimates were 94·3% (95% CI 92·6–96·1) for BrECADD and 90·9% (88·7–93·1) for eBEACOPP. 4-year overall survival rates were 98·6% (97·7–99·5) and 98·2% (97·2–99·3), respectively. BrECADD guided by PET after two cycles is better tolerated and more effective than eBEACOPP in first-line treatment of adult patients with advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Takeda Oncology.

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.

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.

Immunochemotherapy is the first-line standard for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Combining the regimen with anti-angiogenesis may improve efficacy. ETER701 was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial that investigated the efficacy and safety of benmelstobart (a novel programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor) with anlotinib (a multi-target anti-angiogenic small molecule) and standard chemotherapy in treatment-naive ES-SCLC. The ETER701 trial assessed two primary endpoints: Independent Review Committee-assessed progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Here the prespecified final progression-free survival and interim OS analysis is reported. Patients randomly received benmelstobart and anlotinib plus etoposide/carboplatin (EC; n  = 246), placebo and anlotinib plus EC ( n  = 245) or double placebo plus EC (‘EC alone’; n  = 247), followed by matching maintenance therapy. Compared with EC alone, median OS was prolonged with benmelstobart and anlotinib plus EC (19.3 versus 11.9 months; hazard ratio 0.61; P  = 0.0002), while improvement of OS was not statistically significant with anlotinib plus EC (13.3 versus 11.9 months; hazard ratio 0.86; P  = 0.1723). The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events was 93.1%, 94.3% and 87.0% in the benmelstobart and anlotinib plus EC, anlotinib plus EC, and EC alone groups, respectively. This study of immunochemotherapy plus multi-target anti-angiogenesis as first-line treatment achieved a median OS greater than recorded in prior randomized studies in patients with ES-SCLC. The safety profile was assessed as tolerable and manageable. Our findings suggest that the addition of anti-angiogenesis therapy to immunochemotherapy may represent an efficacious and safe approach to the management of ES-SCLC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04234607 . In this triple-arm, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with the anti-PD-L1 benmelstobart, tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib and chemotherapy (CT) showed improved survival outcomes compared with anlotinib and CT or CT alone.

A regimen substituting brentuximab vedotin for bleomycin improved 3-year event-free survival among children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s lymphoma by nearly 10 percentage points without a major increase in toxic effects.

Relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma carries a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial (NCT05277480) to compare apatinib plus ifosfamide/etoposide (IE) with IE alone in patients who had progressed following at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive apatinib (500 mg orally once daily) plus IE (ifosfamide 1.8 g/m²/day and etoposide 100 mg/m²/day, days 1–3 every 3 weeks) or IE alone (same doses, days 1–5 every 3 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Between April 14, 2022, and August 22, 2023, 81 patients were enrolled (53 in apatinib plus IE group and 28 in IE group). After a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the median PFS was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9, 6.4) with apatinib plus IE compared with 3.4 months (95% CI: 1.4, 4.6) with IE (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.98; P  = 0.0402). The trial met its pre-specified primary endpoint. These results suggest that apatinib plus IE may improve PFS in relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma, but as a randomized phase II study, the findings are exploratory and require confirmation in phase III trials. In patients with metastatic osteosarcoma who have progressed on first-line chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. Here, the authors report a phase II randomized clinical trial comparing the combination of apatinib (multi tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and chemotherapy (ifosfamide and etoposide) against chemotherapy alone in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic osteosarcoma.

This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with platinum and etoposide compared to the standard treatment of etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer(ES-SCLC) from the Chinese medical system perspective. A partitioned survival model was developed utilizing data from the RATIONALE-312 trial to accurately simulate the clinical and economic outcomes of both treatment arms. This model incorporates three distinct health states, namely progression-free survival, disease progression, and death. These states are exclusive of each other, and patients can transition between them as their disease progresses.The model accounted for various cost components such as drug therapy, management of adverse events, disease progression, and overall survival. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were chosen as the metrics. The analysis employed a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the model. The tislelizumab group had a total cost of $52,749.69, whereas the chemotherapy group's total expenses amounted to $8,811.62. Additionally, the tislelizumab group experienced a gain of 2.21 QALY compared to the chemotherapy group, albeit incurring an additional cost of $43,938.07. Consequently, this led to an ICER of $19,881.48, which falls below the Chinese WTP threshold of $39,855.79. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings across a range of scenarios. This cost-effectiveness analysis based on the RATIONALE-312 trial demonstrates that tislelizumab plus platinum and etoposide is a cost-effective treatment option for ES-SCLC compared to the standard chemotherapy from the Chinese medical system perspective.

Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0−37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9–5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3–3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41–0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy could improve the outcomes of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Apatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits VEGF receptor 2. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of apatinib and oral etoposide, considering the potential advantage of home administration without hospital admission, in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. In this phase 2, single-arm, prospective study, we recruited patients aged 18–70 years with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (China). The treatment consisted of apatinib at an initial dose of 500 mg once daily on a continuous basis, and oral etoposide at a dose of 50 mg once daily on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle. Oral etoposide was administered for a maximum of six cycles. Treatment was continued until disease progression, patient withdrawal, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. We used Simon's two-stage design, and analysed efficacy in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Safety analyses included enrolled patients who had received at least one dose of study medication, but excluded those without any safety data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02867956. Between Aug 10, 2016, and Nov 9, 2017, we screened 38 and enrolled 35 patients. At the data cutoff date (Dec 31, 2017), 20 (57%) patients had discontinued the study, and 15 (43%) patients remained on treatment. Objective responses were achieved in 19 (54%; 95% CI 36·6–71·2) of 35 patients in the intention-to-treat population and in 19 (61%; 42·2–78·2) of 31 patients in the per-protocol population. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (17 [50%]), fatigue (11 [32%]), anaemia (ten [29%]), and mucositis (eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were reported in two patients who were admitted to hospital (one patient had anaemia and anorexia; the other patient had increased ascites due to disease progression). No treatment-related deaths were recorded. The combination of apatinib with oral etoposide shows promising efficacy and manageable toxicities in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer, and further study in phase 3 trials is warranted. None.

Type II topoisomerases (TOP2s) resolve the topological problems of DNA by transiently cleaving both strands of a DNA duplex to form a cleavage complex through which another DNA segment can be transported. Several widely prescribed anticancer drugs increase the population of TOP2 cleavage complex, which leads to TOP2-mediated chromosome DNA breakage and death of cancer cells. We present the crystal structure of a large fragment of human TOP2β complexed to DNA and to the anticancer drug etoposide to reveal structural details of drug-induced stabilization of a cleavage complex. The interplay between the protein, the DNA, and the drug explains the structure-activity relations of etoposide derivatives and the molecular basis of drug-resistant mutations. The analysis of protein-drug interactions provides information applicable for developing an isoform-specific TOP2-targeting strategy.