PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.
RESULTS: Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients.
DESIGN: Multinational, prospective study including treatment-naïve patients in Asia who received a diagnosis of retinoblastoma in 2017 and were followed up thereafter.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2112 patients (2797 eyes) from 96 retinoblastoma treatment centers in 33 Asian countries.
INTERVENTIONS: Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, enucleation, and orbital exenteration.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Enucleation and death.
RESULTS: Within the cohort, 1021 patients (48%) were from South Asia (SA), 503 patients (24%) were from East Asia (EA), 310 patients (15%) were from Southeast Asia (SEA), 218 patients (10%) were from West Asia (WA), and 60 patients (3%) were from Central Asia (CA). Mean age at presentation was 27 months (median, 23 months; range, < 1-261 months). The cohort included 1195 male patients (57%) and 917 female patients (43%). The most common presenting symptoms were leukocoria (72%) and strabismus (13%). Using the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, Eighth Edition, classification, tumors were staged as cT1 (n = 441 [16%]), cT2 (n = 951 [34%]), cT3 (n = 1136 [41%]), cT4 (n = 267 [10%]), N1 (n = 48 [2%]), and M1 (n = 129 [6%]) at presentation. Retinoblastoma was treated with intravenous chemotherapy in 1450 eyes (52%) and 857 eyes (31%) underwent primary enucleation. Three-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for enucleation and death were 33% and 13% for CA, 18% and 4% for EA, 27% and 15% for SA, 32% and 22% for SEA, and 20% and 11% for WA (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: At the conclusion of this study, significant heterogeneity was found in treatment outcomes of retinoblastoma among the regions of Asia. East Asia displayed better outcomes with higher rates of globe and life salvage, whereas Southeast Asia showed poorer outcomes compared with the rest of Asia.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540.
FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC, acquired resistance to first-/second-generation EGFR inhibitors, and MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥5, MET:CEP7 ≥2, or MET IHC 2+/3+ were randomized to tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). MET-amplified subgroup analysis was preplanned.
RESULTS: Overall (N = 55), median PFS was 4.9 months versus 4.4 months [stratified HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.35-1.28] with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy. In 19 patients with MET amplification (median age 60.4 years; 68.4% never-smokers; median GCN 8.8; median MET/CEP7 2.8; 89.5% with MET IHC 3+), tepotinib plus gefitinib improved PFS (HR, 0.13; 90% CI, 0.04-0.43) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.10; 90% CI, 0.02-0.36) versus chemotherapy. Objective response rate was 66.7% with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus 42.9% with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 19.9 months versus 2.8 months. Median duration of tepotinib plus gefitinib was 11.3 months (range, 1.1-56.5), with treatment >1 year in six (50.0%) and >4 years in three patients (25.0%). Seven patients (58.3%) had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events with tepotinib plus gefitinib and five (71.4%) had chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of INSIGHT suggests improved PFS and OS with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy in a subgroup of patients with MET-amplified EGFR-mutant NSCLC, after progression on EGFR inhibitors.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study on NDMM patients diagnosed between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2022 in a single academic center. Patients' demographic and treatment details were included for analysis of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six NDMM patients with a median age of 64.0 years (ranged from 38 to 87 years old) were included. Bortezomib-containing regimens were the most commonly used induction agent, followed by thalidomide. Almost half of the patients (47.1%) achieved very good partial response (VGPR) or complete remission (CR), while 31.6% achieved partial response (PR). Bortezomib containing regimen was associated with significantly deeper and more rapid response, (p=0.001 and p=0.017, respectively) when compared to other agents. Only 22.8% of these patients proceeded to upfront autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median OS and PFS were 60.0 months and 25.0 months, respectively. Best initial response and upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) were significantly associated with better PFS.
CONCLUSION: Achieving at least a VGPR significantly associated with better outcome in NDMM patients. In a resource constrain country, we recommend incorporating bortezomib in the induction therapy followed with an upfront ASCT.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients with AML excluding acute promyelocytic leukemia were retrospectively analyzed. Patients in the earlier cohort (n = 36) were treated on the Medical Research Council (MRC) AML12 protocol, whereas those in the recent cohort (n = 26) were treated on the Malaysia-Singapore AML protocol (MASPORE 2006), which differed in terms of risk group stratification, cumulative anthracycline dose, and timing of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for high-risk patients.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in 10-year overall survival and event-free survival were observed in patients treated with the recent MASPORE 2006 protocol compared to the earlier MRC AML12 protocol (overall survival: 88.0% ± 6.5% vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .002; event-free survival: 72.1% ± 9.0 vs 50.1% ± 8.6%, P = .045). In univariate analysis, patients in the recent cohort had significantly lower intensive care unit admission rate (11.5% vs 47.2%, P = .005) and numerically lower relapse rate (26.9% vs 50.0%, P = .068) compared to the earlier cohort. Multivariate analysis showed that treatment protocol was the only independent predictive factor for overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.73, P = .014).
CONCLUSION: Outcomes of pediatric AML patients have improved over time. The more recent MASPORE 2006 protocol led to significant improvement in long-term survival rates and reduction in intensive care unit admission rate.
METHODS: A prospective, non-randomised longitudinal study was conducted in two government integrated hospitals over an 8-month period. Early-stage breast cancer patients who were (1) either already using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or not and (2) who were on a regime of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide were included in the study. Patients who agreed to receive CHM were assigned to receive individualised CHM prescriptions deemed suitable for the individual at a particular time. Those who were not willing to take Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) were assigned to the non-CHM control group. Blood profile and chemotherapy-induced AE were recorded whilst HRQOL assessment was done using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire on first, third, and sixth cycles.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients [32 female vs. 1 male, p = 0.31; mean year of age: 52.2(SD = 7.6), p = 0.28)}] were recruited during the study period. Demographics of both groups were comparable. Fifty percent of respondents reported using some kind of CAM before chemotherapy. Diet supplements (40.6%) were the most common CAM used by the respondents. The study showed that patients using CHM had significantly less fatigue (p = 0.012), nausea (p = 0.04), and anorexia (p = 0.005) during chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in patients' HRQOL (p = 0.79). There were no AEs reported during the study.
CONCLUSION: The use of CHM as an adjunct treatment with conventional chemotherapy have been shown to reduce fatigue, nausea, and anorexia in breast cancer patients but did not reduce chemotherapy-associated hematologic toxicity. The sample size of this study was not powered to assess the significance of HRQOL between two groups of patients.