Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Adamson D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7955283 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.
Adamson Douglas D Byrne Anthony A Porter Catharine C Blazeby Jane J Griffiths Gareth G Nelson Annmarie A Sewell Bernadette B Jones Mari M Svobodova Martina M Fitzsimmons Deborah D Nixon Lisette L Fitzgibbon Jim J Thomas Stephen S Millin Anthony A Crosby Tom T Staffurth John J Hurt Christopher C
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology 20210219 4
<h4>Background</h4>Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer have a median survival of 3-6 months, and most require intervention for dysphagia. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion is the most typical form of palliation in these patients, but dysphagia deterioration and re-intervention are common. This study examined the efficacy of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) compared with usual care alone in preventing dysphagia deterioration and reducing service use after SEMS insertion. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo address whether sparing the medial retropharyngeal lymph node (MRLN) region from elective irradiation volume provides non-inferior local relapse-free survival versus standard radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.DesignOpen-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.SettingThree Chinese hospitals between 20 November 2017 and 3 December 2018.ParticipantsAdults (18-65 years) with newly diagnosed, non-keratinising, non-distant metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma without MRLN involvement.InterventionsRandomisation was done centrally by the Clinical Trials Centre at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of four) to receive MRLN sparing radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy (both medial and lateral retropharyngeal lymph node groups), and stratified by institution and treatment modality as follows: radiotherapy alone; concurrent chemoradiotherapy; induction chemotherapy plus radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Main outcome measuresNon-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the one sided 97.5% confidence interval of the absolute difference in three year local relapse-free survival (MRLN sparing radiotherapy minus standard radiotherapy) was greater than -8%.Results568 patients were recruited: 285 in the MRLN sparing radiotherapy group; 283 in the standard radiotherapy group. Median follow-up was 42 months (interquartile range 39-45), intention-to-treat analysis showed that the three year local relapse-free survival of the MRLN sparing radiotherapy group was non-inferior to that of the standard radiotherapy group (95.3% v 95.5%, stratified hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.12), P=0.95) with a difference of -0.2% ((one sided 97.5% confidence interval -3.6 to ∞), Pnon-inferiority<0.001). In the safety set (n=564), the sparing group had a lower incidence of grade ≥1 acute dysphagia (25.5% v 35.1%, P=0.01) and late dysphagia (24.0% v 34.3%, P=0.008). Patient reported outcomes at three years after MRLN sparing radiotherapy were better in multiple domains after adjusting for the baseline values: global health status (mean difference -5.6 (95% confidence interval -9.1 to -2.0), P=0.002), role functioning (-5.5 (-7.4 to -3.6), P<0.001), social functioning (-6.2 (-8.9 to -3.6), P<0.001), fatigue (7.9 (4.0 to 11.8), P<0.001), and swallowing (11.0 (8.4 to 13.6), P<0.001). The difference in swallowing scores reached clinical significance (>10 points difference).ConclusionCompared with standard radiotherapy, MRLN sparing radiotherapy showed non-inferiority in terms of risk of local relapse with fewer radiation related toxicity and improved patient reported outcomes in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03346109.
| S-EPMC9900470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine which primary endovascular revascularisation strategy represents the most clinically effective treatment for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who require endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.DesignThree arm, open label, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial (BASIL-3).Setting35 UK NHS vascular units.ParticipantsPatients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to femoro-popliteal plain balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (PBA±BMS), drug coated balloon angioplasty with or without bare metal stenting (DCBA±BMS), or drug eluting stenting (DES) as their first revascularisation strategy.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was amputation free survival defined as time to first major amputation or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included the composite components of the primary outcome, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, and other prespecified clinical and patient reported outcome measures. Serious adverse events were collected up to 30 days after the first revascularisation procedure.ResultsBetween 29 January 2016 and 31 August 2021, 481 participants were randomised (167 (35%) women, mean age 71.8 years (standard deviation 10.8)). Major amputation or death occurred in 106 of 160 (66%) participants in the PBA±BMS group, 97 of 161 (60%) in the DCBA±BMS group, and 93 of 159 (58%) in the DES group (adjusted hazard ratios: PBA±BMS v DCBA±BMS: 0.84, 97.5% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.16, P=0.22; PBA±BMS v DES: 0.83, 0.60 to 1.15, P=0.20). No differences in serious adverse events were reported between the groups.ConclusionsNeither DCBA±BMS nor DES conferred significant clinical benefit over PBA±BMS in the femoro-popliteal segment in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia undergoing endovascular femoro-popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN14469736.
| S-EPMC11848676 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6706623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfluenza 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.MethodsIn 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.FindingsBetween 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).InterpretationAlthough 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.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC5828518 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9052059 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5840256 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8436782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis Phase 2b study compared the efficacy and toxicity of belotecan and topotecan in recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsPatients with platinum-sensitive recurrent or platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRROC) were randomised 1:1 to receive belotecan 0.5 mg/m2 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 for five consecutive days every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity.ResultsA total of 140 (belotecan, n = 71; topotecan, n = 69) and 130 patients (belotecan, n = 66; topotecan, n = 64) were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. ORR did not differ significantly between the belotecan and topotecan groups (ITT, 29.6% versus 26.1%; PP, 30.3% versus 25%). Although PFS did not differ between the groups, belotecan was associated with improved OS compared with topotecan in the PP population (39.7 versus 26.6 months; P = 0.034). In particular, belotecan showed longer OS in PRROC and non-high-grade serous carcinoma (non-HGSC; PP, adjusted hazard ratios, 0.499 and 0.187; 95% confidence intervals 0.255-0.977 and 0.039-0.895). Furthermore, there were no differences in toxicities between the two groups.ConclusionsBelotecan was not inferior to topotecan in terms of overall response for recurrent ovarian cancer.Clinical trial registrationNCT01630018.
| S-EPMC7853132 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8495594 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5705192 | biostudies-literature