Explore the vast range of titles available.

Upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is under investigation for the treatment of Crohn's disease. In two phase 3 induction trials (U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED), we randomly assigned patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease to receive 45 mg of upadacitinib or placebo (2:1 ratio) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who had a clinical response to upadacitinib induction therapy were randomly assigned in the U-ENDURE maintenance trial to receive 15 mg of upadacitinib, 30 mg of upadacitinib, or placebo (1:1:1 ratio) once daily for 52 weeks. The primary end points for induction (week 12) and maintenance (week 52) were clinical remission (defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score of <150 [range, 0 to 600, with higher scores indicating more severe disease activity]) and endoscopic response (defined as a decrease in the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD; range, 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] of >50% from baseline of the induction trial [or for patients with an SES-CD of 4 at baseline, a decrease of ≥2 points from baseline]). A total of 526 patients underwent randomization in U-EXCEL, 495 in U-EXCEED, and 502 in U-ENDURE. A significantly higher percentage of patients who received 45-mg upadacitinib than those who received placebo had clinical remission (in U-EXCEL, 49.5% vs. 29.1%; in U-EXCEED, 38.9% vs. 21.1%) and an endoscopic response (in U-EXCEL, 45.5% vs. 13.1%; in U-EXCEED, 34.6% vs. 3.5%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). At week 52 in U-ENDURE, a higher percentage of patients had clinical remission with 15-mg upadacitinib (37.3%) or 30-mg upadacitinib (47.6%) than with placebo (15.1%), and a higher percentage had an endoscopic response with 15-mg upadacitinib (27.6%) or 30-mg upadacitinib (40.1%) than with placebo (7.3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Herpes zoster infections occurred more frequently in the 45-mg and 30-mg upadacitinib groups than in the respective placebo groups, and hepatic disorders and neutropenia were more frequent in the 30-mg upadacitinib group than in the other maintenance groups. Gastrointestinal perforations developed in 4 patients who received 45-mg upadacitinib and in 1 patient each who received 30-mg or 15-mg upadacitinib. Upadacitinib induction and maintenance treatment was superior to placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. (Funded by AbbVie; U-EXCEL, U-EXCEED, and U-ENDURE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03345849, NCT03345836, and NCT03345823.).

In two phase 3 trials, mirikizumab, a p19-directed anti–interleukin-23 antibody, was superior to placebo with regard to clinical remission of ulcerative colitis at 12 weeks (induction) and 40 weeks (maintenance).

For more than three decades, standard treatment for rhabdomyosarcoma in Europe has included 6 months of chemotherapy. The European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) aimed to investigate whether prolonging treatment with maintenance chemotherapy would improve survival in patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. RMS 2005 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 102 hospitals in 14 countries. We included patients aged 6 months to 21 years with rhabdomyosarcoma who were considered to be at high risk of relapse: those with non-metastatic incompletely resected embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma occurring at unfavourable sites with unfavourable age (≥10 years) or tumour size (>5 cm), or both; those with any non-metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma with nodal involvement; and those with non-metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma but without nodal involvement. Patients in remission after standard treatment (nine cycles of ifosfamide, vincristine, dactinomycin with or without doxorubicin, and surgery or radiotherapy, or both) were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop treatment or continue maintenance chemotherapy (six cycles of intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and daily oral cyclophosphamide 25 mg/m2, on days 1–28). Randomisation was done by use of a web-based system and was stratified (block size of four) by enrolling country and risk subgroup. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and toxicity. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-000217-35, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00339118, and follow-up is ongoing. Between April 20, 2006, and Dec 21, 2016, 371 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two groups: 186 to stop treatment and 185 to receive maintenance chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·3 months (IQR 32·4–89·4). In the intention-to-treat population, 5-year disease-free survival was 77·6% (95% CI 70·6–83·2) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 69·8% (62·2–76·2) without maintenance chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·45–1·02]; p=0·061), and 5-year overall survival was 86·5% (95% CI 80·2–90·9) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 73·7% (65·8–80·1) without (HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·32–0·86]; p=0·0097). Toxicity was manageable in patients who received maintenance chemotherapy: 136 (75%) of 181 patients had grade 3–4 leucopenia, 148 (82%) had grade 3–4 neutropenia, 19 (10%) had anaemia, two (1%) had thrombocytopenia, and 56 (31%) had an infection. One (1%) patient had a grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (neurotoxicity). Two treatment-related serious adverse events occurred: one case of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion and one of a severe steppage gait with limb pain, both of which resolved. Adding maintenance chemotherapy seems to improve survival for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. This approach will be the new standard of care for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma in future EpSSG trials. Fondazione Città della Speranza, Association Léon Berard Enfant Cancéreux, Clinical Research Hospital Program (French Ministry of Health), and Cancer Research UK.

Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia were treated with intensive chemotherapy and then randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral azacitidine (CC-486) daily for 14 days per 28-day cycle. CC-486 was associated with significantly longer relapse-free and overall survival, with some gastrointestinal side effects but maintenance of quality of life.

In a large, multinational, randomized trial, continuous lenalidomide maintenance therapy after triplet therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) and autologous stem-cell transplantation resulted in longer progression-free survival than triplet therapy alone.

ObjectivesA prospective randomised trial to compare two different durations of maintenance immunosuppressive therapy for the prevention of relapse in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV).MethodsPatients with AAV were recruited 18–24 months after diagnosis if they were in stable remission after cyclophosphamide/prednisolone-based induction followed by azathioprine/prednisolone maintenance therapy. They were randomised (1:1) to receive continued azathioprine/prednisolone to 48 months from diagnosis (continuation group) or to withdraw azathioprine/prednisolone by 24 months (withdrawal group). The primary endpoint was the relapse risk, from randomisation to 48 months from diagnosis.ResultsOne hundred and seventeen patients were randomised and 110 remained to the trial end. At entry, median serum creatinine was 116 μmol/L (range 58–372), 53% were ANCA positive. The percentage of patients presenting with relapse was higher in the withdrawal than in the continuation treatment group (63% vs 22%, p<0.0001, OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.58 to 13.77). ANCA positivity at randomisation was associated with relapse risk (51% vs 29%, p=0.017, OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.68). Renal function, ANCA specificity, vasculitis type and age were not predictive of relapse. Severe adverse events were more frequent in the continuation than withdrawal groups (nine vs three events), but the continuation group had better renal outcome (0 vs 4 cases of end-stage renal disease), with no difference in patient survival.ConclusionsProlonged remission maintenance therapy with azathioprine/prednisolone, beyond 24 months after diagnosis reduces relapse risk out to 48 months and improves renal survival in AAV.Trial registration numberISRCTN13739474

The impact of single-agent antibodies against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) as maintenance therapy is unknown in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The SAFIR02-BREAST IMMUNO substudy included patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (Her2)-negative metastatic breast cancer whose disease did not progress after six to eight cycles of chemotherapy. Patients ( n  = 199) were randomized to either durvalumab (10 mg kg −1 every 2 weeks) or maintenance chemotherapy. In the overall population, durvalumab did not improve progression-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–1.96; P  = 0.047) or overall survival (OS; adjusted HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.54–1.29; P  = 0.423). In an exploratory subgroup analysis, durvalumab improved OS in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; n  = 82; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30–0.97, P  = 0.0377). Exploratory analysis showed that the HR of death was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.12–1.13) for patients with PD-L1 + TNBC ( n  = 32) and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.18–1.34) for those with PD-L1 − TNBC ( n  = 29). In patients with TNBC, exploratory analyses showed that the HR for durvalumab efficacy (OS) was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.05–0.71; log-rank test, P  = 0.0059) in patients with CD274 gain/amplification ( n  = 23) and 1.12 (95% CI: 0.42–2.99; log-rank test, P  = 0.8139) in patients with CD274 normal/loss ( n  = 32). Tumor infiltration by lymphocytes (CD8, FoxP3 and CD103 expressions) and homologous recombination deficiency did not predict sensitivity to durvalumab in exploratory analyses. This latter finding should be interpreted with caution since only one patient presented a germline BRCA mutation. The present study provides a rationale to evaluate single-agent durvalumab in maintenance therapy in patients with TNBC. Exploratory analyses identified CD274 amplification as a potential biomarker of sensitivity. Maintenance chemotherapy was more effective than durvalumab in patients with hormone receptor-positive and Her2-negative disease. Exploratory analyses from the phase 2 randomized SAFIR02-IMMUNO trial identify biomarkers associated with improved outcomes to durvalumab as compared to maintenance chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Despite improved efficacy with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), survival remains poor. In this study, we aimed to compare lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab and atezolizumab alone as maintenance therapies in patients with ES-SCLC without progression after induction therapy with atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide. IMforte was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 96 hospitals and medical centres in 13 countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Türkiye, the UK, and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive ES-SCLC. Patients received four 21-day cycles of induction treatment (atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide). After completing induction treatment, eligible patients without disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks (Interactive Voice/Web Response System) to receive maintenance treatment intravenously every 3 weeks with lurbinectedin (3·2 mg/m2; with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or atezolizumab (1200 mg). The two primary endpoints were independent review facility-assessed (IRF) progression-free survival and overall survival, measured from randomisation into the maintenance phase. Efficacy endpoints were assessed in the full analysis set, which included all patients who were randomly assigned to maintenance phase treatment, regardless of whether they received their assigned study treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of lurbinectedin or atezolizumab, and was analysed according to the treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05091567, and is closed for recruitment. Between Nov 17, 2021, and Jan 11, 2024, 895 patients were screened for enrolment, of whom 660 (74%) were enrolled into the induction phase. Between May 24, 2022, and April 30, 2024, 483 (73%) of 660 patients entered the maintenance phase and were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab (n=242) or atezolizumab (n=241). At the data cutoff (July 29, 2024), IRF progression-free survival was longer in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group than the atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·43–0·67]; p<0·0001), as was overall survival (stratified HR 0·73 [0·57–0·95]; p=0·017). 92 (38%) of 242 patients in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group and 53 (22%) of 240 patients in the atezolizumab group had grade 3–4 adverse events. The most common grade 3–4 events in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group were anaemia (20 [8%] of 242 patients), decreased neutrophil count (18 [7%] patients), and decreased platelet count (18 [7%] patients) and the most common events in the atezolizumab group were hyponatremia (five [2%] of 240 patients), dyspnoea (four [2%] patients), and pneumonia (four [2%] patients). Grade 5 adverse events occurred in 12 (5%) of 242 patients in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group and six (3%) of 240 patients in the atezolizumab group. The incidence of myelosuppressive toxicities (eg, neutropenia and leukopenia) was higher in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group than the atezolizumab group. IRF progression-free survival and overall survival were longer in the lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab group than the atezolizumab group for patients with ES-SCLC, albeit with a higher incidence of adverse events. Lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab represents a novel therapeutic option for first-line maintenance treatment in this setting. F Hoffmann-La Roche and Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Approximately 7% of pancreatic cancers occur in patients with a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 , an alteration that compromises DNA repair. In a randomized trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer that had responded to platinum-based chemotherapy, progression-free survival was nearly twice as long with olaparib than with placebo (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months).

There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2–24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0–24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8–5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6–5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9–not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1–18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25–0·43]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period. For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting. AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.