Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery is superior to primary debulking surgery in terms of perioperative complications and progression-free survival, in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer patients with high tumor load.MethodsPatients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (stage IIIC-IV) underwent laparoscopy. Patients with high tumor load assessed by a standardized laparoscopic predictive index were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to undergo either primary debulking surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (arm A), or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Co-primary outcome measures were progression-free survival and post-operative complications; secondary outcomes were overall survival, and quality of life. Survival analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat population.Results171 patients were randomly assigned to primary debulking surgery (n=84) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=87). Rates of complete resection (R0) were different between the arms (47.6% in arm A vs 77.0% in arm B; p=0.001). 53 major postoperative complications were registered, mainly distributed in arm A compared with arm B (25.9% vs 7.6%; p=0.0001). All patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. With an overall median follow-up of 59 months (95% CI 53 to 64), 142 (83.0%) disease progressions/recurrences and 103 deaths (60.2%) occurred. Median progression-free and overall survival were 15 and 41 months for patients assigned to primary debulking surgery, compared with 14 and 43 months for patients assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, p=0.73; HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.65, p=0.56).ConclusionsNeoadjuvant chemotherapy and primary debulking surgery have the same efficacy when used at their maximal possibilities, but the toxicity profile is different.

Among patients who received two 3-week cycles of neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab, the 12-month event-free survival was 83.7%, as compared with 57.2% among those who received only adjuvant therapy.

SummaryBackgroundSystemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 orally twice daily on days 1–14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15–21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m 2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3–14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m 2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01558921, and is now complete. FindingsBetween June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5–5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8–27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1–34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). InterpretationThe observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. FundingDutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

The benefit of regional nodal irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer is well established for patients with pathologically positive axillary nodes, but whether it is also beneficial for patients whose nodes become pathologically tumor free (ypN0) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. We evaluated whether regional nodal irradiation improves outcomes in patients with biopsy-proven, node-positive breast cancer who reach ypN0 status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with breast cancer with a clinical stage of T1 to T3 (tumor size, ≤2 cm to >5 cm), N1, and M0 (indicating spread to one to three axillary lymph nodes but no distant metastasis) who had ypN0 status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive regional nodal irradiation or no regional nodal irradiation. The primary end point was the interval of freedom from invasive breast cancer recurrence or death from breast cancer (invasive breast cancer recurrence-free interval). Secondary end points included the locoregional recurrence-free interval, the distant recurrence-free interval, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. A total of 1641 patients were enrolled in the trial; 1556 were included in the primary-event analysis: 772 in the irradiation group and 784 in the no-irradiation group. After a median follow-up of 59.5 months, 109 primary end-point events (50 in the irradiation group and 59 in the no-irradiation group) had occurred. Regional nodal irradiation did not significantly increase the invasive breast cancer recurrence-free interval (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.28; P = 0.51). Point estimates of survival free from the primary end-point events were 92.7% in the irradiation group and 91.8% in the no-irradiation group. Regional nodal irradiation did not increase the locoregional recurrence-free interval, the distant recurrence-free interval, disease-free survival, or overall survival. No deaths related to the protocol-specified therapy were reported, and no unexpected adverse events were observed. Grade 4 adverse events occurred in 0.5% of patients in the irradiation group and 0.1% of those in the no-irradiation group. The addition of adjuvant regional nodal irradiation did not decrease the risk of invasive breast cancer recurrence or death from breast cancer in patients who had negative axillary nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; NSABP B-51-Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1304 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01872975.).

PD-1 plus CTLA-4 blockade is highly effective in advanced-stage, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancers, yet not in MMR-proficient (pMMR) tumors. We postulated a higher efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in early-stage colon cancers. In the exploratory NICHE study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03026140 ), patients with dMMR or pMMR tumors received a single dose of ipilimumab and two doses of nivolumab before surgery, the pMMR group with or without celecoxib. The primary objective was safety and feasibility; 40 patients with 21 dMMR and 20 pMMR tumors were treated, and 3 patients received nivolumab monotherapy in the safety run-in. Treatment was well tolerated and all patients underwent radical resections without delays, meeting the primary endpoint. Of the patients who received ipilimumab + nivolumab (20 dMMR and 15 pMMR tumors), 35 were evaluable for efficacy and translational endpoints. Pathological response was observed in 20/20 (100%; 95% exact confidence interval (CI): 86–100%) dMMR tumors, with 19 major pathological responses (MPRs, ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 12 pathological complete responses. In pMMR tumors, 4/15 (27%; 95% exact CI: 8–55%) showed pathological responses, with 3 MPRs and 1 partial response. CD8 + PD-1 + T cell infiltration was predictive of response in pMMR tumors. These data indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy may have the potential to become the standard of care for a defined group of colon cancer patients when validated in larger studies with at least 3 years of disease-free survival data. Results from the NICHE study show remarkable pathological responses to neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy in patients with early-stage colon cancer and uncover potential biomarkers of response.

Among patients with triple-negative breast cancer, 5-year survival was 86.6% with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab with chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab and 81.7% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treatment for cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Adding perioperative immunotherapy may improve outcomes. In this phase 3, open-label, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, cisplatin-eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer to receive neoadjuvant durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by radical cystectomy and adjuvant durvalumab every 4 weeks for eight cycles (durvalumab group), or to receive neoadjuvant gemcitabine-cisplatin followed by radical cystectomy alone (comparison group). Event-free survival was one of two primary end points. Overall survival was the key secondary end point. In total, 533 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group and 530 to the comparison group. The estimated event-free survival at 24 months was 67.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.6 to 71.7) in the durvalumab group and 59.8% (95% CI, 55.4 to 64.0) in the comparison group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, not undergoing radical cystectomy, or death from any cause, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by stratified log-rank test). The estimated overall survival at 24 months was 82.2% (95% CI, 78.7 to 85.2) in the durvalumab group and 75.2% (95% CI, 71.3 to 78.8) in the comparison group (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93; P = 0.01 by stratified log-rank test). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 in severity occurred in 40.6% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 40.9% of those in the comparison group; treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in 0.6% in each group. Radical cystectomy was performed in 88.0% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 83.2% of those in the comparison group. Perioperative durvalumab plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy led to significant improvements in event-free survival and overall survival as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. (Funded by AstraZeneca; NIAGARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03732677; EudraCT number, 2018-001811-59.).

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.).

A substantial proportion of individuals with oesophageal cancer have a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. We aimed to investigate whether active surveillance could be an alternative for individuals with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We performed a multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial in 12 Dutch hospitals. Individuals with locally advanced oesophageal cancer and a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ie, no tumour detected with endoscopic biopsies, ultrasound, and PET-CT) underwent active surveillance or standard surgery (ie, oesophagectomy within 2 weeks after reaching clinical complete response). There were no inclusion restrictions regarding comorbidities or performance status, but participants had carcinoma, were age 18 years or older, and were treated with curative intent. Randomisation of hospitals was performed using computer-generated sequences without stratification methods, after an initial phase of all hospitals performing standard surgery. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle (allowing crossover at time of clinical complete response) and an intention-to-treat principle. Non-inferiority was defined as 2-year survival rate for active surveillance of 15% or less below that for standard surgery. The trial was registered within the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR-6803, and the inclusion phase has been completed. Between Nov 8, 2017, and Jan 17, 2021, 1115 individuals were screened, of whom 309 were included. 198 underwent active surveillance and 111 underwent standard surgery. 242 (78%) participants were male and 67 (22%) were female. Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 32–48). 2-year overall survival for active surveillance (74% [95% CI 69–78]) was non-inferior to standard surgery (71% [62–78]) after modified intention-to-treat analysis (one-sided 95% boundary: 7% lower). It remained non-inferior in the intention-to-treat analysis (75% [68–80] vs 70% [63–77], one-sided 95% boundary: 6% lower). There were no significant differences in overall survival according to modified intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio 1·14, two-sided 95% CI 0·74–1·78) or intention-to-treat analysis (0·83, 0·53–1·31). The frequency of postoperative complications and postoperative mortality after standard surgery or postponed surgery after active surveillance was similar between groups. Overall survival after active surveillance for oesophageal cancer was non-inferior compared with standard surgery after 2 years. For the long-term efficacy of active surveillance, extended follow-up is required. The results of the present trial could be used for patient counselling and shared decision making. Dutch Cancer Society (KWF) and Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

In a phase 3 trial, the addition of neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab to standard care improved event-free survival among participants with locally advanced head and neck cancer without affecting surgical outcomes.