Adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Long-term results of a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

Aim of the studyPrevious results from our trial showed that adjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy did not significantly improve survival after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) at 2 years. Here, we present the data of long-term survival and late toxicities to further assess the ultimate therapeutic index of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).MethodsPatients with stage III–IVB (except T3-4N0) NPC were randomly assigned to receive CCRT plus AC or CCRT only at seven institutions in China. Patients in both groups received cisplatin 40 mg/m² weekly up to 7 weeks concurrently with radiotherapy. The CCRT plus AC group subsequently received adjuvant cisplatin 80 mg/m² and fluorouracil 800 mg/m²/d for 120 h every 4 weeks for three cycles. The primary end-point was failure-free survival.ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-one patients were randomised to the CCRT plus AC group and 257 to the CCRT only group. After a median follow-up of 68.4 months, estimated 5-year failure-free survival rate was 75% in the CCRT plus AC group and 71% in the CCRT only group (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.64–1.22; p = 0.45). 66 (27%) of 249 patients in the CCRT plus AC group and 53 (21%) of 254 patients in the CCRT only group developed one or more late grade 3–4 toxicities (p = 0.14).ConclusionAdjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy still failed to demonstrate significant survival benefit after CCRT in locoregionally advanced NPC based on the long-term follow-up data, and addition of adjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil did not significantly increase late toxicities.Registration numberNCT00677118.     

Adjuvant regional chemotherapy and systemic chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND: Systemic adjuvant chemotherapy can improve overall survival and reduce the incidence of distant metastases for patients with advanced colon cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether regional chemotherapy (given by intraperitoneal or intraportal methods) combined with systemic chemotherapy was more effective than was systemic chemotherapy alone in terms of survival and recurrence for patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer. The study also compared systemic chemotherapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid with that of fluorouracil and levamisole. METHODS: During surgery, 753 patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to systemic chemotherapy alone (379 with fluorouracil and folinic acid, and 374 with fluorouracil and levamisole), and 748 to postoperative regional chemotherapy with fluorouracil followed by systemic chemotherapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=368) or with fluorouracil and levamisole (n=380). Regional chemotherapy was given intraperitoneally (n=415) or intraportally (n=235) according to institution. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival and toxic effects. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 6.8 years (range 0.0-10.1). 5-year overall survival was 72.3% (95% CI 69.0-75.6) for patients assigned regional and systemic chemotherapy, compared with 72.0% (68.7-75.3) for those assigned systemic chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97 [0.81-1.15], p=0.69). 5-year overall survival for all patients assigned fluorouracil and levamisole was 72.0% (68.7-75.2) compared with 72.3% (69.0-75.6) for all those assigned fluorouracil and folinic acid (HR 0.98 [0.82-1.17], p=0.81). The hazard ratios for 5-year disease-free survival were 0.94 (0.80-1.10) for regional versus non-regional treatment, and 0.92 (0.79-1.08) for all fluorouracil and levamisole versus fluorouracil and folinic acid. Grade 3-4 toxic effects were low in all groups. INTERPRETATION: Fluorouracil-based regional chemotherapy adds no further benefit to that obtained with systemic chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.     

A randomized study of aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Objectives This is a single center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant, in Chinese breast cancer patients. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen and standard antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The secondary objective was to compare the patient-reported quality of life in these two groups of patients. Patients and Methods Eligible breast cancer patients were chemotherapy-naive and treated with adjuvant AC chemotherapy (i.e. doxorubicin 60 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m²). Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant-based regimen (day 1, aprepitant 125 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, aprepitant 80 qd) or a control arm which consisted of standard regimen (day 1, ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, ondansetron 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary, patients quality of life were assessed by self-administered Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Results Of 127 patients randomized, 124 were assessable. For CINV in Cycle 1 AC, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with reported complete response, complete protection, total control, ‘no vomiting’, ‘no significant nausea’ and ‘no nausea’. The requirement of rescue medication appears to be lesser in patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen compared to those with the standard regimen (11% vs. 20%; P = 0.06). Assessment of FLIE revealed that while there was no difference in the nausea domain and the total score between the two groups; however, patients receiving standard antiemetic regimen had significantly worse quality of life in the vomiting domain (mean score [SD] = 23.99 [30.79]) when compared with those who received the aprepitant-based regimen (mean score [SD] = 3.40 [13.18]) (P = 0.0002). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen had a significantly lower incidence of neutropenia (53.2% vs. 35.5%, P = 0.0468), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (21.0% vs. 45.2, P = 0.0042) and delay in subsequent cycle of chemotherapy (8.1% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.0048). Conclusion The aprepitant regimen appears to reduce the requirement of rescue medication when compared with the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide, and is associated with a better quality of life during adjuvant AC chemotherapy.     

Modulation of 5-fluorouracil as adjuvant systemic chemotherapy in colorectal cancer: the IGCS-COL multicentre, randomised, phase III study

The aims of this multicentre, randomised phase III trial were to evaluate: (1) the role of levamisol (LEV); and (2) the role of folinic acid (FA), added to 5-fluorouracil (5FU) in the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. Patients with histologically proven, radically resected stage II or III colon or rectal cancer were eligible. The study had a 2x2 factorial design with four treatment arms: (a) 5FU alone, (b) 5FU+LEV, (c) 5FU+FA, (d) 5FU+LEV+FA, and two planned comparisons, testing the role of LEV and of FA, respectively. From March 1991, to September 1998, 1327 patients were randomised. None of the two comparisons resulted in a significant disease-free (DFS) or overall (OAS) survival advantage. The hazard ratio (HR) of relapse was 0.89 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.73-1.09) for patients receiving FA and 0.99 (95% CI 0.80-1.21) for those receiving LEV; corresponding HRs of death were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.80-1.30) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.73-1.20). Nonhaematological toxicity (all grade vomiting, diarrhoea, mucositis, congiuntivitis, skin, fever and fatigue) was significantly worse with FA, while all other toxicities were similar. In the present trial, there was no evidence that the addition of FA or LEV significantly prolongs DFS and OAS of radically resected colorectal cancer patients.     

A randomised phase II study of docetaxel/oxaliplatin and docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: an Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary group trial (ATOM 019)

Introduction

To date, no combination regimen has proven superior to single agent chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

This multicenter, non-comparative randomised phase II trial evaluated the activity of docetaxel (75 mg/m² on day 1) with oxaliplatin (70 mg/m² on day 2) every 3 weeks in previously treated NSCLC patients; the reference arm was single-agent docetaxel (75 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks). It was designed as a one-stage, three-outcome phase II trial; 21 evaluable patients were required in each arm. The primary end-point was response rate; secondary end-points were toxicity, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival.

Results

Fifty patients were enrolled. Patient characteristics included male/female, 76/24%; median age 62 years; ECOG PS 0/1, 36/64%; previous platinum-based chemotherapy, 98%. Partial response was seen in 20% and 8%, stable disease in 52% and 32%, of patients treated with docetaxel/oxaliplatin and docetaxel, respectively. Main grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia 56% and 64%; febrile neutropenia 4% and 8%; diarrhoea 12% and 4% for docetaxel/oxaliplatin and docetaxel, respectively. Median PFS was 5.0 and 1.7 months, median survival 11.0 and 7.1 months, and 1-year survival 44% and 32% for docetaxel/oxaliplatin and docetaxel, respectively.

Conclusions

The study met its pre-defined study end-point; docetaxel/oxaliplatin and more generally platinum-containing doublets warrant further evaluation as second-line therapy for patients with NSCLC.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled multi-centre phase III trial of XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

The purpose of this randomised phase III trial was to evaluate whether the addition of simvastatin, a synthetic 3-hydroxy-3methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, to XELIRI/FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimens confers a clinical benefit to patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of 269 patients previously treated for metastatic colorectal cancer and enrolled in 5 centres in South Korea. Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to one of the following groups: FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus simvastatin (40 mg) or FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus placebo. The FOLFIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 180 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion, leucovorin at 200 mg m⁻² as a 2-h infusion, and a bolus injection of 5-FU 400 mg m⁻² followed by a 46-h continuous infusion of 5-FU at 2400 mg m⁻². The XELIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 250 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion with capecitabine 1000 mg m⁻² twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), time to progression, and toxicity.

Results:

Between April 2010 and July 2013, 269 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (134 simvastatin, 135 placebo). The median PFS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.5–7.3) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin group and 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.4–8.6) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus placebo group (P=0.937). No significant difference was observed between the two groups with respect to OS (median, 15.9 months (simvastatin) vs 19.9 months (placebo), P=0.826). Grade ⩾3 nausea and anorexia were noted slightly more often in patients in the simvastatin arm compared with with the placebo arm (4.5% vs 0.7%, 3.0% vs 0%, respectively).

Conclusions:

The addition of 40 mg simvastatin to the XELIRI/FOLFIRI regimens did not improve PFS in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer nor did it increase toxicity.     

奥沙利铂治疗结直肠癌的随机多中心Ⅱ期临床试验

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Oxaliplatin in the patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: In a multicenter randomized control study, a total of 144 patients were divided into four groups: Oxaliplatin (Haitong) 5-FU, CF(group A) 41 cases; 5-FU CF (group B) 41 cases; Oxaliplatin (Haitong) 5-FU, CF (group C) 31 cases; Oxaliplatin (positive drug) 5-FU CF (group D) 31 cases. Oxaliplatin combination regimen: L-OHP 130 mg/m2 i.v. infusion 2 h d1; CF 200 mg/m2i.v. 2h d1-d5; 5-FU 300 mg/m2 i.v. infusion 4h d1-d5 (after CF). 5-FU CF combination regimen: CF 200 mg/m2 i.v. infusion 2 h d1-d5, 5-FU 300 mg/m2 i.v. infusion 4h d1-d5 (after CF), the schedule was repeated every 3 weeks. The total cycles were 3. Results: After three circles treatment, overall response rate of 4 groups was 24.4% (group A), 2.4% (group B), 25.8%(group C) and 19.4% (group D), respectively. The response rate was significantiy different between group A and group B (P＜0.01), but no significant difference was observed between group C and group D (P＞0.05). Conclusion: The Oxaliplatin(Haitong) for injection combination regimen is effective in the treatment of colorectal cancer.     

A randomised phase II multicentre trial of irinotecan (CPT-11) using four different schedules in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

The purpose of this phase II trial was to compare the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of four irinotecan schedules for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. In total, 174 5-fluorouracil pretreated patients were randomised to: arm A (n=41), 350 mg m(-2) irinotecan as a 90-min i.v. infusion q3 weeks; arm B (n=38), 125 mg m(-2) irinotecan as a 90-min i.v. infusion weekly x 4 weeks q6 weeks; arm C (n=46), 250 mg m(-2) irinotecan as a 90-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks; or arm D (n=49), 10 mg m(-2) day(-1) irinotecan as a 14-day continuous infusion q3 weeks. No significant differences in efficacy across the four arms were observed, although a shorter time to treatment failure was noted for arm D (1.7 months; P=0.02). Overall response rates were in the range 5-11%. Secondary end points included median survival (6.4-9.4 months), and time to progression (2.7-3.8 months) and treatment failure (1.7-3.2 months). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities, although the toxicity profile between arms A, B, and C and D did differ. Generally, significantly less haematologic toxicity, alopecia and cholinergic syndrome were observed in arm D; however, there was a trend for increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Irinotecan is an effective and safe second-line treatment for colorectal cancer. The schedules examined yielded equivalent results, indicating that there is no advantage of the prolonged vs short infusion schedules.