METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
DESIGN: Double-masked, 100-week, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized trials.
METHODS: Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to brolucizumab 3mg/6mg or aflibercept 2mg in KESTREL (N=566) or 1:1 to brolucizumab 6mg or aflibercept 2mg in KITE (N=360). Brolucizumab groups received 5 loading doses every 6 weeks (q6w) followed by q12w dosing, with optional adjustment to q8w if disease activity was identified at pre-defined assessment visits; aflibercept groups received 5xq4w followed by fixed q8w dosing. The primary endpoint was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline at Week 52; secondary endpoints included the proportion of subjects maintained on q12w dosing, change in DRSS score and anatomical and safety outcomes.
RESULTS: At Week 52, brolucizumab 6mg was noninferior (NI margin 4 letters) to aflibercept in mean change in BCVA from baseline (KESTREL: +9.2 letters versus +10.5 letters; KITE: +10.6 letters versus +9.4 letters; p<0.001), more subjects achieved central subfield thickness (CSFT) <280µm and fewer had persisting subretinal and/or intraretinal fluid versus aflibercept, with >50% of brolucizumab 6mg subjects maintained on q12w dosing after loading. In KITE, brolucizumab 6mg showed superior improvements in change of CSFT from baseline over Week 40-Week 52 versus aflibercept (p=0.001). The incidence of ocular serious adverse events was 3.7% (brolucizumab 3mg), 1.1% (brolucizumab 6mg), 2.1% (aflibercept) in KESTREL; 2.2% (brolucizumab 6mg), 1.7% (aflibercept) in KITE.
CONCLUSION: Brolucizumab 6mg showed robust visual gains and anatomical improvements with an overall favorable benefit/risk profile in patients with DME.
Methods: A field survey was performed on June 29, 2017 in a pond used for culturing the shrimp Penaeus japonicus, located in the southern Yellow Sea, China. Jellyfish specimens were collected for morphological and genetic analysis. The morphological characters of the jellyfish specimens were compared to taxonomic literature. Additionally, phylogenetic analysis of the mitochondrial 16S fragments of these specimens were also conducted.
Results: These specimens had the following morphological characters: hemispherical umbrella without scapulets; J-shaped oral arms; a single larger terminal club on each arm; bluish colored with a slightly expanded white tip; and mouthlets present only in the lower half to one-third of each arm. These morphological features of the medusae indicated that the specimens found in the shrimp culture ponds belong to the genus Phyllorhiza Agassiz, 1862, but did not match with the description of any of the known species of the genus Phyllorhiza. Phylogenetic analyses of the mtDNA 16S regions revealed that these specimens, together with Phyllorhiza sp. from Malaysian coastal waters, belong to a sister group of Phyllorhiza punctata. Juveniles and ephyrae of Phyllorhiza sp. were observed in the aquaculture pond. The mean density of Phyllorhiza sp. medusa in the surface water within the pond was estimated to be 0.05 individuals/m2.
Discussion: Based on our observations of the gross morphology and molecular data, we state that the specimens collected in the aquaculture pond can be identified as Phyllorhiza sp. This is the first record of Phyllorhiza sp. in Chinese seas. Large scale dispersal through ballast water or the expansion of jellyfish aquarium exhibitions are possible pathways of invasion, but this needs to be confirmed in further studies.