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.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.
METHODS: OPTIM1SE was a prospective, open-label, observational study. Patients with untreated KRAS wild-type mCRC and distant metastases were treated per locally approved labels and monitored for 3 years via electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: From November 19, 2013, to June 30, 2016, 520 patients were enrolled in 51 sites. Patients were mostly male (61.2%), with a mean age of 58.5 (±12.0) years; 420 patients received leucovorin, 5-FU, and irinotecan-based regimens and 94 received leucovorin, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin. The most common primary tumor site was the rectum (38.8%), with liver metastases (65.0%). ORR was 45.4% (95% CI, 41.1%-49.7%), including 26 patients (5.0%) with a complete response. Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.0); median OS (mOS) was 30.8 months (95% CI, 27.9-33.6). Higher mOS was associated with tumors of left compared with right-sided origin (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.99]); higher ORR was also associated with liver metastases compared with all other metastases (55.4% vs. 40.2%). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cetuximab.
CONCLUSION: Cetuximab-based 5-FU regimens were effective first-line treatments for mCRC in routine practice, particularly in patients with left-sided disease and liver metastases only.
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.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: APEC was a nonrandomized phase 2 trial conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (n = 289) received once-every-2-weeks cetuximab with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI). The primary end point was best confirmed overall response rate (BORR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the KRAS wt population, BORR was 58.8%, median PFS 11.1 months, and median OS 26.8 months. Expanded RAS mutational analysis revealed that patients with RAS wt mCRC had better outcomes (BORR = 64.7%; median PFS = 13.0 months; median OS = 28.4 months). The data suggest that ETS and DpR may be associated with survival outcomes in the RAS wt population. Although this study was not designed to formally assess differences in outcome between treatment subgroups, efficacy results appeared similar for patients treated with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. There were no new safety findings; in particular, grade 3/4 skin reactions were within clinical expectations.
CONCLUSION: The observed activity and safety profile is similar to that reported in prior first-line pivotal studies involving weekly cetuximab, suggesting once-every-2-weeks cetuximab is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy and may represent an alternative to weekly administration.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted in Penang General Hospital on 534 anemic solid cancer patients who were admitted between 2003 and 2009. The main statistical tests used were Chi-square test and Logistic regression test for categorical data. While for continues data the main statistical tests were Linear regression and correlation test. The significance of the result will be when the P<0.05, while the confidence interval for this study was 95%.
RESULTS: FEC, 5-FU+5-FU, Docetaxel and Cisplatin+ 5-FU regimen has strong association and correlation with anemia onset and severity. However the associations and correlations with anemia severity were stronger than those with the onset. Different doses of 5-FU, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel and cisplatin play a critical role in anemia onset and severity.
CONCLUSION: Monitoring and determination of hemoglobin levels for cancer patients treated with FEC, 5-FU+5-FU, Docetaxel, Cisplatin+ 5-FU specifically with high doses must be emphasized and a focus of particular attention.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study looked at patients who had palliative chemotherapy with either cisplatin/5FU or carboplatin/5FU for metastatic and recurrent SCCHN and NPC. It included patients who were treated at UKMMC from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 with either palliative IV cispaltin 75 mg/m2 D1 only plus IV 5FU 750 mg/m2 D1-5 infusion or IV Carboplatin AUC 5 D1 only plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 infusion plus IV 5FU 500 mg/m2 D1-2 bolus. The specific objectives were to determine the efficacy of palliative chemotherapy in terms of overall response rate (ORR), median progression free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) and to evaluate the toxicities of both regimens.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were eligible for this study. There were 17 in the cisplatin/5FU arm and 24 in the carboplatin/5FU arm. The ORR was 17.7 % for cisplatin/5FU arm and 37.5 % for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.304). The median PFS was 7 months for cisplatin/5FU and 9 months for carboplatin/5FU (p-value=1.015). The median OS was 10 months for cisplatin/5FU arm and 12 months for carboplatin/5FU arm (p-value=0.110). There were 6 treatment-related deaths (6/41=14.6%), four in the carboplatin/5FU arm (4/24=16.7%) and 2 in the cisplatin/5FU arm (2/17=11.8%). Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity was also more common with carboplatin/5FU group, this difference being predominantly due to grade 3-4 granulocytopenia (41.6% vs. 0), grade 3-4 anemia (37.5% vs. 0) and grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (16.6% vs. 0).
CONCLUSIONS: Carboplatin/5FU is not inferior to cisplatin/5FU with regard to its efficacy. However, there was a high rate of treatment-related deaths with both regimens. A better alternative needs to be considered.