Study protocol of an open-label, single arm phase II trial investigating the efficacy, safety and quality of life of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with liposomal irinotecan combined with Oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil/Folinic acid followed by curative surgical resection in patients with hepatic Oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (HOLIPANC).

BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, treatment of patients with hepatic oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer is not reflected and systemic chemotherapy is recommended in those patients. Retrospective data suggest beneficial outcomes in patients with hepatic oligometastasis, though prospective data from clinical trials addressing this particular patient group is not available. METHODS: In this single arm, phase-2 trial, survival data from patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by R0/R1 resection will be compared to historic data from patients with oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. The clinical trial will focus on a well-defined patient collective with metastatic load limited to the liver as target organ with a maximum of five metastases. The combination of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI), oxaliplatin (OX) and 5-fluouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) (nal-IRI + OX+ 5-FU/FA, NAPOX) was chosen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy; the choice was based on an ongoing clinical study in which NAPOX appeared manageable, with promising anti-tumor activity in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In total 150 patients will be enrolled for this trial with an aim of 55 patients receiving a complete macroscopic synchronous tumor and metastatic resection. DISCUSSION: This is the first clinical study to prospectively evaluate the value of multimodality therapy concepts in oligometastatic pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2019-002734-37 ; NCT04617457 .

A randomized, multicenter phase II study comparing efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and cisplatin is a first-line standard in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without targetable mutations. It became the backbone of checkpoint-inhibitor-chemotherapy combinations. Single high doses of cisplatin pose toxicity risks and require hyperhydration, potentially prolonging outpatient application. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of split-dose cisplatin with the standard schedule. METHODS: Patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm A), or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (day 1) and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 (day 1 + 8, arm B), followed by pemetrexed maintenance. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary objectives were overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, treatment compliance, toxicity profile, and quality of life. RESULTS: We enrolled 130 patients (129 evaluable). Median cycle numbers in A and B were six (1-6) and five (1-6). Dose intensities were comparable between arms. More patients in A received pemetrexed maintenance (24.2% versus 11.1%). With 16 (24.2%) in A and 19 (30.2%) patients in B achieving objective responses [odds ratio 0.74 (0.34-1.62), p = 0.55] the primary endpoint was met. Overall survival was not different between arms (median 14.4 versus 14.9 months); [HR = 1.07; (0.68-1.68), p = 0.78]. Median progression-free survival was 7.0 months in A and 6.2 months in B [HR = 1.63; (1.17-2.38); p = 0.01]. Adverse events of CTCAE grade ⩾3, particularly hematological, were more frequent in B. No difference in grade 4 and 5 infections between arms was noted. Treatment-related asthenia and nausea/vomiting of any grade were more frequent in A. Global health status, fatigue and constipation measured on day 1 of cycle 4 demonstrated superior scores in B. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed and split-dose cisplatin is safe and effective. Advantages of split-dose cisplatin with regard to specific toxicities allow personalization of this important chemotherapy backbone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2011-001963-37.

Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel plus carboplatin with or without levofloxacin prophylaxis in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the APRONTA trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of levofloxacin prophylaxis on infection rates during chemotherapy with docetaxel plus carboplatin in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, phase III study, patients (≥65 years) with untreated, histologically/cytologically proven stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer received docetaxel (75 mg/m) plus carboplatin (area under the curve 6) on day 1 every 3 weeks, plus once-daily levofloxacin (500 mg orally) or placebo on days 5 to 11. The primary end point was the rate of grade 3/4 infections or grade 1/2 infections treated with additional antibiotics. Secondary end points included overall infection rate, toxicity, overall survival, and progression-free survival. RESULTS: In total, 187 patients were randomized to levofloxacin (n = 95) or placebo (n = 92). The rate of grade 3/4 infections or grade 1/2 infections treated with additional antibiotics (intent-to-treat population) was 27.5% (95% confidence interval, 19.3-39.0%) for levofloxacin versus 36.7% (95% confidence interval, 27.1-48.0%) for placebo. Median time to first infection was 67 days for levofloxacin versus 46 days for placebo. Grade 3/4 infections occurred in 8.8% of patients in the levofloxacin group versus 26.7% for placebo. There was one grade 5 infection in each group. Grade ≥3 toxicities (levofloxacin versus placebo) included leukopenia (63.2 versus 52.2%), neutropenia (62.1 versus 51.1%), dyspnea (12.6 versus 8.7%), and pain (10.5 versus 9.8%). There was no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin prophylaxis reduces the rate of infection compared with placebo and is well tolerated in elderly patients receiving docetaxel plus carboplatin.

Weekly vinorelbine versus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer after failing anthracycline treatment.

BACKGROUND: Vinorelbine and docetaxel are active in anthracycline-pretreated, metastatic breast cancer. We compared their efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive weekly vinorelbine (VIN) or weekly docetaxel (DOC), 6 weekly doses per 8-week cycle, with optional crossover (X-DOC vs. X-VIN. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP) on initial treatment. Remission induction, survival, and quality of life were secondary end points. RESULTS: Among 122 poor risk patients, a non-significant trend for better TTP was seen for DOC, both on initial and on crossover treatment. Responses were seen on either treatment, but progression was more common with VIN than with DOC, while more patients had a response with X-DOC than with X-VIN. Survival was identical in those receiving only the initial VIN vs. DOC and in the subgroups receiving crossover treatments. Grade 3-4 toxicity, especially hematological toxicity resulting in treatment delay, was more common with VIN. Non-graded toxicity contributed to abandoning DOC. Quality of life scores reflected worse results in patients crossing treatment arms, in either direction. CONCLUSIONS: DOC showed marginally better activity but did not improve TTP or other endpoints over VIN in this poor risk population.