Project description:Background Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cause of cancer worldwide. In recent years, the frequency to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been increased, but its real advantages over conventional surgery is still remains. The aim of this study is to compare patients who underwent open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy with those who underwent minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic oesophagectomy (MIO) to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the MIO. Methods We did a multicentre prospective, open and parallel, randomised controlled trial in six study centres between April 1st, 2014, and April 30th, 2018. Patients aged 18–75 years with resectable middle and upper esophageal cancer were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy (Group A) or MIO (Group B). The perioperative outcomes were to compare operative time, intraoperative blood loss, total expenses in hospital, hospital stay, the number and location of lymph nodes harvested and respiratory complications within 30 days. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02355249. Results We randomly assigned 339 patients to the Group A and 156 to the Group B. No differences emerged in terms of age (year) [(61.52±8.52) vs. (60.25±6.28), P=0.67], the median lengths of hospital stay (day) [(16.28±8.02) vs. (17.15±11.74), P=0.08]. Group A has less intraoperative blood loss (mL) [(241.1±165.8) vs. (274.0±169.8), P<0.05] and total expenses in hospital (?) [(92,076±27,889) vs. (107,669±32,655), P<0.05], shorter operative time (min) [(267±92.2) vs. (364.3±99.43), P<0.05]. While Group B has palpable advantage in the number [(18.30±11.44) vs. (23.08±12.45), P<0.05] and location [(4.30±2.16) vs. (5.44±2.37), P<0.05] of lymph nodes harvested. The proportion of respiratory complications within 30 days was no statistical difference in the Group B [21/156 (13.5%)] compared to the Group A [45/339 (13.3%)] (Chi-square sig =0.934, P>0.05). Meanwhile, the study makes clear that tumour size has no correlation to operative time (Spearman r =?0.014, P>0.05) and intraoperative blood loss (Spearman r =0.078, P>0.05). Conclusions Compared to open three-stage transthoracic oesophagectomy, MIO has prominent representation in lymph nodes harvested which is fatal to estimate prognosis and plan sequential treatment plan, although, MIO has some disadvantage such as longer operative time, more intraoperative blood loss and total expenses in hospital which is conflicting to previous observational studies conclusion. There is no statistical difference in respiratory complications within 30 days between the two surgical approaches. Next step, survival rate after 2 years will be analyzed and published after the follow-up work is finished.

Project description:Background: Influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality despite available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest that plasma with high antibody titres to influenza might be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.Methods: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial, 29 academic medical centres in the USA assessed the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with haemagglutination inhibition antibody titres of 1:80 or more to the infecting strain. Hospitalised children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as the presence of hypoxia or tachypnoea) were randomly assigned to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care, versus standard care alone, and were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalisation of patients' respiratory status (respiratory rate of ?20 breaths per min for adults or age-defined thresholds of 20-38 breaths per min for children) and a room air oxygen saturation of 93% or more. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01052480.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2011, and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened for eligibility and 98 were randomly assigned from 20 out of 29 participating sites. Of the participants with confirmed influenza (by PCR), 28 (67%) of 42 in the plasma plus standard care group normalised their respiratory status by day 28 compared with 24 (53%) of 45 participants on standard care alone (p=0·069). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing plasma plus standard care with standard care alone was 1·71 (95% CI 0·96-3·06). Six participants died, one (2%) from the plasma plus standard care group and five (10%) from the standard care group (HR 0·19 [95% CI 0·02-1·65], p=0·093). Participants in the plasma plus standard care group had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 days [IQR 4-16] vs 11 days [5-25], p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 days [IQR 0-6] vs 3 days [0-14], p=0·14). Fewer plasma plus standard care participants had serious adverse events compared with standard care alone recipients (nine [20%] of 46 vs 20 [38%] of 52, p=0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients) and stroke (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients).Interpretation: Although there was no significant effect of plasma treatment on the primary endpoint, the treatment seemed safe and well tolerated. A phase 3 randomised trial is now underway to further assess this intervention.Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:IntroductionThe standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery.Methods and analysisAPHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire).Ethics and disseminationThe trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines.Trial registration numberISRCTN16158514.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough women with endometrial cancer generally have a favourable prognosis, those with high-risk disease features are at increased risk of recurrence. The PORTEC-3 trial was initiated to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer.MethodsPORTEC-3 was an open-label, international, randomised, phase 3 trial involving 103 centres in six clinical trials collaborating in the Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup. Eligible women had high-risk endometrial cancer with FIGO 2009 stage I, endometrioid-type grade 3 with deep myometrial invasion or lymph-vascular space invasion (or both), endometrioid-type stage II or III, or stage I to III with serous or clear cell histology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or radiotherapy and chemotherapy (consisting of two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) using a biased-coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis for final analysis by intention to treat and adjusted for stratification factors. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual; follow-up is ongoing. PORTEC-3 is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138.Results686 women were enrolled between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013. 660 eligible patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 330 were assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 330 were assigned to radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·2 months (IQR 48·1-73·1). 5-year overall survival was 81·8% (95% CI 77·5-86·2) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·7% (72·1-81·6) with radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·54-1·06; p=0·11); 5-year failure-free survival was 75·5% (95% CI 70·3-79·9) versus 68·6% (63·1-73·4; HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·022). Grade 3 or worse adverse events during treatment occurred in 198 (60%) of 330 who received chemoradiotherapy versus 41 (12%) of 330 patients who received radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Neuropathy (grade 2 or worse) persisted significantly more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy (20 [8%] women vs one [1%] at 3 years; p<0·0001). Most deaths were due to endometrial cancer; in four patients (two in each group), the cause of death was uncertain. One death in the radiotherapy group was due to either disease progression or late treatment complications; three deaths (two in the chemoradiotherapy group and one in the radiotherapy group) were due to either intercurrent disease or late treatment-related toxicity.InterpretationAdjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer did not improve 5-year overall survival, although it did increase failure-free survival. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer should be individually counselled about this combined treatment. Continued follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term survival.FundingDutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant and Cancer Australia, L'Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Project description:BackgroundFirst-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma has a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year. We aimed to evaluate first-line programmed cell death (PD)-1 inhibitor-based therapies in gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We report the first results for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 649), we enrolled adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated, unresectable, non-HER2-positive gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 29 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 while all three groups were open) via interactive web response technology (block sizes of six) to nivolumab (360 mg every 3 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks) plus chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks or leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin every 2 weeks), nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were OS or progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review, in patients whose tumours had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of five or more. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872116.FindingsFrom March 27, 2017, to April 24, 2019, of 2687 patients assessed for eligibility, we concurrently randomly assigned 1581 patients to treatment (nivolumab plus chemotherapy [n=789, 50%] or chemotherapy alone [n=792, 50%]). The median follow-up for OS was 13·1 months (IQR 6·7-19·1) for nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 11·1 months (5·8-16·1) for chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significant improvements in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [98·4% CI 0·59-0·86]; p<0·0001) and PFS (HR 0·68 [98 % CI 0·56-0·81]; p<0·0001) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of five or more (minimum follow-up 12·1 months). Additional results showed significant improvement in OS, along with PFS benefit, in patients with a PD-L1 CPS of one or more and all randomly assigned patients. Among all treated patients, 462 (59%) of 782 patients in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and 341 (44%) of 767 patients in the chemotherapy alone group had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25%) were nausea, diarrhoea, and peripheral neuropathy across both groups. 16 (2%) deaths in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group and four (1%) deaths in the chemotherapy alone group were considered to be treatment-related. No new safety signals were identified.InterpretationNivolumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor to show superior OS, along with PFS benefit and an acceptable safety profile, in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in previously untreated patients with advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, or oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard first-line treatment for these patients.FundingBristol Myers Squibb, in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Project description:BackgroundDespite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma.MethodIn the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2-4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3-4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients.FindingsBetween Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2-29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9-24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2-24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group.InterpretationTo our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time.FundingF Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Project description:BackgroundThe anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody trastuzumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib have complementary mechanisms of action and synergistic antitumour activity in models of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. We argue that the two anti-HER2 agents given together would be better than single-agent therapy.MethodsIn this parallel groups, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study undertaken between Jan 5, 2008, and May 27, 2010, women from 23 countries with HER2-positive primary breast cancer with tumours greater than 2 cm in diameter were randomly assigned to oral lapatinib (1500 mg), intravenous trastuzumab (loading dose 4 mg/kg [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED], subsequent doses 2 mg/kg), or lapatinib (1000 mg) plus trastuzumab. Treatment allocation was by stratified, permuted blocks randomisation, with four stratification factors. Anti-HER2 therapy alone was given for the first 6 weeks; weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) was then added to the regimen for a further 12 weeks, before definitive surgery was undertaken. After surgery, patients received adjuvant chemotherapy followed by the same targeted therapy as in the neoadjuvant phase to 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathological complete response (pCR), analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00553358.Findings154 patients received lapatinib, 149 trastuzumab, and 152 the combination. pCR rate was significantly higher in the group given lapatinib and trastuzumab (78 of 152 patients [51·3%; 95% CI 43·1-59·5]) than in the group given trastuzumab alone (44 of 149 patients [29·5%; 22·4-37·5]; difference 21·1%, 9·1-34·2, p=0·0001). We recorded no significant difference in pCR between the lapatinib (38 of 154 patients [24·7%, 18·1-32·3]) and the trastuzumab (difference -4·8%, -17·6 to 8·2, p=0·34) groups. No major cardiac dysfunctions occurred. Frequency of grade 3 diarrhoea was higher with lapatinib (36 patients [23·4%]) and lapatinib plus trastuzumab (32 [21·1%]) than with trastuzumab (three [2·0%]). Similarly, grade 3 liver-enzyme alterations were more frequent with lapatinib (27 [17·5%]) and lapatinib plus trastuzumab (15 [9·9%]) than with trastuzumab (11 [7·4%]).InterpretationDual inhibition of HER2 might be a valid approach to treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting.FundingGlaxoSmithKline.

Project description:BackgroundIf treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects.MethodsPatients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612.FindingsBetween Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1-8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00-0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31-2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00-5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.InterpretationAxillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1-2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity.FundingEORTC Charitable Trust.

Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active.FindingsBetween June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction).InterpretationThe dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data.FundingBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Dataset Information

Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets