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.

METHODS: The medical records for NHL patients who had undergone HDT followed by AHSCT from October 1997 to November 2016 from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia were obtained from the medical record database and analysed retrospectively through statistical analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were retrospectively identified post-AHSCT, where the majority of whom had B cell lymphoma (53.4%). Majority of patients (88.5%) were in complete remission before AHSCT. The overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years were 68.9% and 60.8%, respectively. The major cause of death was disease progression at 73.9%, while transplant-related mortality was 15.2%, with a median follow-up period of 179.5 weeks.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with GCTs and treated with at least two cycles of BEP chemotherapy between January 2003 and Oct 2009 were eligible for this study. Patients received 4-6 cycles of bleomycin 30,000IU IV D1, D8 and D15 and either etoposide 100mg/m2 IV D1- D5 and cisplatin 20mg/m2 IV D1- D5 (5 day BEP regimen) or etoposide 165 mg/m2 D1- D3 and cisplatin 50mg/m2 D1-3 (3 day BEP regimen) every three weeks per cycle. All patients received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) from days 6 to 10 of each cycle. The overall response rates, 2 year progression-free survival and overall survival of the whole cohort were assessed.

RESULTS: Thirty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Non-seminomatous GCTs comprised 93.3% of cases and gonadal and mediastinal primary sites were the most common. Sixty percent were classified as IGCCCG poor risk disease. Median follow-up was 26.6 months. The overall response rate (CR+PR) was 70%. The two year PFS and OS were 70% and 66%. There was a significant difference in terms of the overall response rate (85% vs 40%, p = 0.03) and in PFS (94.7% vs 50%, p = 0.003) between gonadal and extragonadal primary sites.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T3-4, N2 M0 breast cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 and who received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Thirty-four patients were identified from the Chemotherapy Daycare Records and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen administered was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. Breast tumour size and nodal status was assessed at diagnosis, at each cycle and before surgery.

RESULTS: All 34 patients had invasive ductal cancer. The median age was 52 years (range 27-69). 65% had T4 disease and 76% were clinically lymph node positive at diagnosis. The median size of the breast tumour at presentation was 80 mm (range 42-200 mm). Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity was seen in less than 40% and HER2 positivity, by immunohistochemistry, in 27%. The majority (85%) of patients had anthracycline based chemotherapy, without taxanes. The overall response rate (clinical CR+PR) was 67.6% and pathological complete responses were apparent in two (5.9%). 17.6% of patients defaulted part of their planned treatment. Recurrent disease was seen in 44.1% and the median time to relapse was 11.3 months. The three year disease free and overall survival rates were 52.5% and 58% respectively.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared a prospectively collected group of 48 patients undergoing oxaliplatin/irinotecan-based perioperative systemic chemotherapy (s-CT) with targeted agents, and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) (no-HIPEC group) with 48 controls undergoing the same perioperative s-CT and CRS/HIPEC (HIPEC group). Patients were matched (1:1) according to the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score, completeness of cytoreduction, history of extraperitoneal disease (EPD), and Peritoneal Cancer Index.

RESULTS: The groups were comparable, except for a higher number of patients in the HIPEC group with World Health Organization performance status 0, pN2 stage primary tumor, and treated with preoperative s-CT. Forty-one patients in the no-HIPEC group and 43 patients in the HIPEC group had optimal comprehensive treatment (P = 0.759), defined as complete cytoreduction of PM and margin-negative EPD resection. Median follow-up was 31.6 months in the no-HIPEC group and 39.9 months in the HIPEC group. Median overall survival was 39.3 months in the no-HIPEC group and 34.8 months in the HIPEC group (P = 0.702). In the two groups, severe morbidity occurred in 14 (29.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients, respectively (P = 1.000), with no operative deaths. On multivariate analysis, left-sided primary and curative treatment independently correlated with better survival while HIPEC did not (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.15; P = 0.178).

METHODS: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031.

FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64-0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71-1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63-0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45-0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53-0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group.

INTERPRETATION: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.