MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the clinical notes of all patients prescribed with oral capecitabine chemotherapy for any tumour sites in University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) from 1st January 2009 till 31st June 2010. Information collected included patient demographics, histopathological features, treatment received including the different chemotherapy regimens and intent of treatment whether the chemotherapy was given for neoadjuvant, concurrent with radiation, adjuvant or palliative intent. The aim of this study is to establish the pattern of usage, FN and TRD rates with capecitabine in clinical practice outside of clinical trial setting. FN is defined as an oral temperature >38.5°or two consecutive readings of >38.0° for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 x 109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5 x 109/L (de Naurois et al., 2010). Treatment related death was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of last chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: Between 1st January 2009 and 30th June 2010, 274 patients were treated with capecitabine chemotherapy in UMMC. The mean age was 58 years (range 22 to 82 years). Capecitabine was used in 14 different tumour sites with the colorectal site predominating with a total of 128 cases (46.7%), followed by breast cancer (35.8%). Capecitabine was most commonly used in the palliative setting accounting for 63.9% of the cases, followed by the adjuvant setting (19.7%). The most common regimen was single agent capecitabine with 129 cases (47.1%). The other common regimens were XELOX (21.5%) and ECX (10.2%). The main result of this study showed an overall FN rate of 2.2% (6/274). The overall TRD rate was 5.1% (14/274). The FN rate for the single agent capecitabine regimen was 1.6% (2/129) and the TRD rate was 5.4% (7/129). All the TRDs were with single agent capecitabine regimen were used for palliative intent.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is used widely in clinical practice in a myriad of tumour sites and bears a low risk of febrile neutropaenia. However, capecitabine like any other intravenous chemotherapeutic agent carries a significant risk of treatment related death.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All newly diagnosed patients with NPC referred for treatment to the Oncology unit at UMMC from 2004-2008 were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes were 5 years overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), loco- regional control (LRC) and radiotherapy-related late effects. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis and differences in survival according to AJCC stage was compared using the log-rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 176 patients with newly diagnosed NPC were treated in UMMC during this period. Late presentation was common, with 33.5% presenting with T3-4 disease, 84.7% with N1-3 disease and 75.6% with AJCC stage 3-4 disease. Radical RT was given to 162 patients with 22.7% having RT alone and 69.3% having CCRT. The stipulated OTT was 7 weeks and 72.2% managed to complete their RT within this time period. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given to 14.8% while adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 16.5%. The 5 years OS was 51.6% with a median follow up of 58 months. The 5 years OS according to stage were 81.8% for stage I, 77.9% for stage II, 47.4% for stage III and 25.9% for stage IV. The 5 years overall CSS, DFS and LRC were 54.4%, 48.4% and 70.6%, respectively. RT related late effects were documented in 80.2%. The commonest was xerostomia (66.7%). Other documented late effects were hearing deficit (17.3%), visual deficit (3.1%), neck stiffness (3.1%) , dysphagia (3.4%), cranial nerve palsy (2.5%), pneumonitis (0.6%) and hypothyroidism (1.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: The 5 years OS and LRC in this study are low compared to the latest studies especially those utilizing IMRT. Implementation of IMRT for NPC treatment should be strongly encouraged.
METHODS: This retrospective study covered all NPC patients who underwent radical IMRT treatment at the Penang General Hospital from June 2011 to February 2012. Patients of any age and stage of disease with histologically proven diagnosis were included. Information was collected on patient demographics, clinical stage, treatment received, including any neoadjuvant and/or concurrent chemotherapy, acute toxity and completion of IMRT within the OTT.
RESULTS: A total of 26 NPC patients were treated with IMRT during the study period; 88.5% had stage III/IV disease. 45.2% received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy while 50.0% were given concurrent chemo-irradiation. All patients completed the treatment and 92.3% within the 7 weeks OTT. Xerostomia was present in all patients with 92.3% having grade 2. Severe grade III/IV acute toxicity occurred in 73.1% of patients, the commonest of which was oral mucositis (57.6%). This was followed by dysphagia which occurred in 53.8%, skin reactions in 42.3% and weight loss in 19.2%. However, haematological toxicity was mild with only one patient having leucopaenia.
CONCLUSION: IMRT treatment for NPC is feasible in our center. More importantly, it can be delivered within the 7 weeks OTT in the majority of patients. Severe grade 3/4 toxicity is very common (73.1%) and thus maximal nutritional and analgesic support is required throughout the treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All newly diagnosed patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck (HNSCC) referred for treatment to the Oncology Unit at UMMC from 2003-2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes were 5-year overall survival (OS), cause specific survival (CSS), loco-regional control (LRC) and radiotherapy (RT) related side effects. Kaplan-Meier and log rank analyses were used to determine survival outcomes, stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage.
RESULTS: A total of 130 cases were analysed. Most cases (81.5%) were at late stage (AJCC III-IVB) at presentation. The 5-year OS for the whole study population was 34.4% with a median follow up of 24 months. The 5-year OS according to AJCC stage was 100%, 48.2%, 41.4% and 22.0% for stage I, II, III and IVA-B, respectively. The 5-year overall CSS and LCR were 45.4% and 55.4%, respectively. Late effects of RT were documented in 41.4% of patients. The most common late effect was xerostomia.
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment outcome of HNSCC at our centre is lagging behind those of developed nations. Efforts to increase the number of patients presenting in earlier stages, increase in the use of combined modality treatment, especially concurrent chemoradiotherapy and implementation of intensity modulated radiotherapy, may lead to better outcomes for our HNC patients.
OBJECTIVES: The intent of this article is to evaluate the effect of oral cryotherapy on the prevention of oral mucositis and pain among patients with colorectal cancer undergoing fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.
METHODS: Using an experimental study design, the authors randomly assigned 80 patients to either the intervention (n = 40) or usual care group (n = 40). Intervention group participants received oral cryotherapy in the form of ice chips held in their mouths during chemotherapy infusion. Both groups used sodium bicarbonate mouthwash postchemotherapy until the next cycle.
FINDINGS: In the usual care group, most participants reported grade 2 (moderate to life-threatening) or greater mucositis. Pain associated with mucositis was lower using oral cryotherapy, with the majority of participants in the intervention group reporting no pain.
METHODS: A double-blind randomized study was carried out with 140 colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy. Subjects were separated into two groups to receive either placebo or MCP [30 billion colony-forming unit (CFUs) per sachet] at a dose of two sachets daily for 4 weeks, and omega-3 fatty acid at a dose of 2 g daily for 8 weeks. Outcomes measured were quality of life, side effects of chemotherapy and levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and C-reactive protein.
RESULTS: The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid improved the overall quality of life and alleviated certain side effects of chemotherapy. The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid also managed to reduce the level of IL-6 (P = 0.002). There was a significant rise in the placebo group's serum TNF-α (P = 0.048) and IL-6 (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: The combined supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid may improve quality of life, reduce certain inflammatory biomarkers and relieve certain side effects of chemotherapy in colorectal patients on chemotherapy.
METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study was conducted at 36 medical centers in China (mainland), Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤2 years or 80 mg/m2 of paclitaxel intravenously every week. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 16, 2017, and March 12, 2018, 94 patients were randomly assigned (47 pembrolizumab/47 paclitaxel) after screening; enrollment was stopped on March 12, 2018, based on the results of the global KEYNOTE-061 study, and patients were followed until the last patient's last visit. Median OS was 8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-10 months) with pembrolizumab versus 8 months (95% CI, 5-11 months) with paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.54). Median PFS was 2 months (95% CI, 1-3 months) with pembrolizumab versus 4 months (95% CI, 3-6 months) with paclitaxel (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.52). ORR was 13% for pembrolizumab versus 19% for paclitaxel. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28 pembrolizumab-treated patients (60%) and 42 paclitaxel-treated patients (96%); grades 3 to 5 events occurred in 5 patients (11%) and 28 patients (64%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitive conclusions about the efficacy of second-line pembrolizumab in Asian patients with advanced PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer are limited because of insufficient power, but pembrolizumab was well tolerated in this patient population. Efficacy followed a trend similar to that observed in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial.
METHODS: Participants with R/M HNSCC and no prior systemic therapy for R/M disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy. Post hoc efficacy analyses of the PD-L1 CPS < 1 and CPS 1-19 subgroups were performed.
RESULTS: Of 882 participants enrolled, 128 had PD-L1 CPS < 1 and 373 had CPS 1-19. For pembrolizumab versus cetuximab-chemotherapy, the median overall survival was 7.9 versus 11.3 months in the PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 0.96 to 2.37]) and 10.8 versus 10.1 months in the CPS 1-19 subgroup (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.12]). For pembrolizumab-chemotherapy versus cetuximab-chemotherapy, the median overall survival was 11.3 versus 10.7 months in the PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup (HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.94]) and 12.7 versus 9.9 months in the CPS 1-19 subgroup (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.94]).
CONCLUSION: Increased efficacy of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab-chemotherapy was observed with increasing PD-L1 expression. PD-L1 CPS < 1 subgroup analysis was limited by small participant numbers. Results from the PD-L1 CPS 1-19 subgroup support previous findings of treatment benefit with pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 tumors. Although PD-L1 expression is informative, exploration of additional predictive biomarkers is needed for low PD-L1-expressing HNSCC.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, or cetuximab-chemotherapy. Efficacy was evaluated in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20, CPS ≥ 1, and total populations, with no multiplicity or alpha adjustment.
RESULTS: The median study follow-up was 45.0 months (interquartile range, 41.0-49.2; n = 882). At data cutoff (February 18, 2020), overall survival improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.81) and CPS ≥ 1 populations (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89) and was noninferior in the total population (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97). Overall survival improved with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.84), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and total (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85) populations. The objective response rate on second-course pembrolizumab was 27.3% (3 of 11). PFS2 improved with pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84) and CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95) populations and with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy in the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 20 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86), CPS ≥ 1 (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.81), and total (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88) populations. PFS2 was similar after pembrolizumab and longer after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line taxanes and shorter after pembrolizumab and similar after pembrolizumab-chemotherapy on next-line nontaxanes.
CONCLUSION: With a 4-year follow-up, first-line pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab-chemotherapy continued to demonstrate survival benefit versus cetuximab-chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Patients responded well to subsequent treatment after pembrolizumab-based therapy.
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.