Alternating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone versus continuous gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel after induction treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (ALPACA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination. METHODS: ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment. FUNDING: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

Exploring the integration of dentistry within a multidisciplinary palliative care team: does bedside dental care improve quality of life and symptom burden in inpatient palliative care patients?

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant impact of oral problems on the quality of life of palliative care patients, comprehensive studies are lacking. This study is the first of its kind to address this gap by including both a dental examination and an intervention and assessing quality of life using the EORTC QLQ OH 15 questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to explore the impact of incorporating dentists into inpatient palliative care, with a focus on enhancing quality of life and alleviating symptom burden. METHODS: In this monocentric study, data were gathered from a palliative care unit over an 8-month period. At the beginning of the multidisciplinary treatment, T0, patients underwent both a dental examination and interviews utilizing established questionnaires, the EORTC QLQ-C30 (core, general) and OH 15 (oral health). A week later, at T1, patients underwent a follow-up examination and interview. The QLQ-C30 and OH15 are widely recognized instruments developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) for evaluating health related quality of life in cancer patients. RESULTS: A total of n = 103 patients (48.5% women) were enrolled in the study. The median duration since their last dental visit was 1 year, and the dental condition at T0 was desolate. At T1, statistically and clinically significant changes in oral quality of life and symptom burden were observed. Noteworthy changes were noted in the OH-QoL score (median 63 vs. 92, p < 0.001), sticky saliva (median 33 vs. 0, p < 0.001), sensitivity to food and drink (median 33 vs. 0, p < 0.001), sore mouth (median 33 vs. 0, p > 0.001), and poorly fitting dentures (median 33 vs. 0 p < 0.001). Additionally, improvements were observed in xerostomia candidiasis and mucositis. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the powerful contribution of integrating a dentist in inpatient palliative care. With very little dental effort and simple ward and bedside treatments, significant improvements in the oral symptom burden of critically ill palliative patients can be achieved. This contributes to improved care status, relief of distressing symptoms, and ultimately improved quality of life. The results strongly support the consideration of dental support as an integral part of palliative care units.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin versus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies (AIO NALIRICC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies in pretreated advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin as second-line treatment for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: NALIRICC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 17 German centres for patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, metastatic biliary tract cancer, and progression on gemcitabine-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous infusions of nanoliposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2), fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2), and leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (nanoliposomal irinotecan group) or fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2) plus leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (control group). Randomisation was by permutated block randomisation in block sizes of four, stratified by primary tumour site. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was the primary endpoint, which was evaluated in all randomly assigned patients. Secondary efficacy outcomes were overall survival, objective response rate, and quality of life. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. Enrolment for this trial has been completed, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043547. FINDING: Between Dec 4, 2017, and Aug 2, 2021, 49 patients were randomly assigned to the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 51 patients to the control group. Median age was 65 years (IQR 59-71); 45 (45%) of 100 patients were female. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·7-3·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 2·3 months (1·6-3·4) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·87 [0·56-1·35]). Median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·3-10·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 8·2 months (5·4-11·9) in the control group (HR 1·08 [0·68-1·72]). The objective response rate was 14% (95% CI 6-27; seven patients) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 4% (1-14; two patients) in the control group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group were neutropenia (eight [17%] of 48 vs none in the control group), diarrhoea (seven [15%] vs one [2%]), and nausea (four [8%] vs none). In the control group, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were cholangitis (four [8%] patients vs none in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group) and bile duct stenosis (four [8%] vs three [6%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 16 (33%) patients in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group (grade 2-3 diarrhoea in five patients; one case each of abdominal infection, acute kidney injury, pancytopenia, increased blood bilirubin, colitis, dehydration, dyspnoea, infectious enterocolitis, ileus, oral mucositis, and nausea). One (2%) treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in the control group (worsening of general condition). Median duration until deterioration of global health status, characterised by the time from randomisation to the initial observation of a score decline exceeding 10 points, was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·2-not reached) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 3·7 months (2·7-not reached) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nanoliposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil plus leucovorin did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival and was associated with higher toxicity compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin. Further research is necessary to define the role of irinotecan-based combinations in second-line treatment of biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Servier and AIO-Studien.

What Is the Impact of Multimodal Treatment in Patients with Leiomyosarcoma of Bone? A Multicenter Study of 35 Patients with an Ultra-Rare Tumor Entity.

Primary leiomyosarcoma of bone (LMSoB) is extremely rare, comprising only <0.7% of primary malignant bone tumors, and is therefore considered an ultra-rare tumor entity. There is currently no consensus as to whether therapeutic strategies should be based on the biological characteristics of soft tissue leiomyosarcoma or on primary tumor localization in the bone. The use of perioperative chemotherapy and its effectiveness in this rare tumor entity remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of different treatment approaches in a multicenter setting with a total of 35 patients included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 74%. Patients with localized disease undergoing surgery had a significantly higher 5-year OS compared to patients who did not undergo surgical treatment (82% vs. 0%, p = 0.0015). Axial tumor localization was associated with worse event-free survival (EFS) probability (p < 0.001) and OS (p = 0.0082). A high proportion of our patients developed secondary metastases. Furthermore, the perioperative chemotherapy protocols applied to our patients were not associated with an improved EFS or OS. Therefore, the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy in LMSoB needs to be further investigated, and the choice of agents still needs to be clarified.

How Do Quality of Life (QoL) and Symptom Burden Evolve in Inpatient Palliative Care (PC) Patients following One Week of Care in a Specialized Palliative Care Unit (PCU)? A Comparison of Two Groups, with One Receiving Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care Prior to Admission.

PURPOSE: This study sought to investigate changes in quality of life (QoL) and symptom burden among palliative care patients undergoing one week of inpatient care in a specialized palliative care unit (PCU). The patient population was stratified into two groups, with one group pretreated from pre-admission palliative care (PC) provided by an outpatient multidisciplinary PC team, while the other group did not receive such support prior to admission. Although the average duration of treatment at a PCU in Germany is 1-2 weeks, the question also arises as to whether a significant improvement in symptom burden and QoL can be expected after just one week of PC in a PCU. METHODS: PC patients with various cancer entities were prospectively included in a non-randomized study. Patients in group 1 received outpatient specialized PC prior to admission, while patients in group 2 did not. Over an 8-month period, we gathered data from one academic cancer center, utilizing the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to assess health-related QoL in cancer patients. Patients completed the QLQ-C30 at T0 (admission or one day later) and T1 (one week later), enabling the assessment of potential changes in their QoL and symptom burden over time. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (51.5% male) were enrolled (group 1: 42%, group 2: 58%). At T0, there were no significant differences regarding QLQ-C30 scores between groups 1 and 2, except from global health/QoL (group 1 mean 20.7, group 2 mean 25.6, p = 0.026). Over the course of one week several significant and clinically relevant changes were found: Emotional functioning demonstrated an uplift in both groups (group 1: mean 41.5 IQR 33 vs. 53.1 IQR 50, p = 0.014, group 2: mean 48.2 IQR 46 vs. 56.8 IQR 58, p = 0.029), as did the global health status (group 1: M 20.7 IQR 17 vs. 36.2 IQR 33, p < 0.001, group 2: M 25.6 IQR 25 vs. 35.3 IQR 33, p < 0.001). Nausea and vomiting showed a reduction (group 1: M 29.9 IQR 17 vs. 6.8 IQR 0, p < 0.001, group 2: M 22.6 IQR 17 vs. 8.2 IQR 0, p < 0.001), along with a notable decline in pain (group 1: M 67.4 IQR 67 vs. 25.3 IQR 17, p < 0.001, group 2: M 73.1 IQR 83 vs. 29.7 IQR 17, p < 0.001). A decrease was observed in insomnia (group 1: M 63.6 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p < 0.001, group 2: M 60.1 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 in the extent of improvement in the various symptom scales from T0 to T1. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study demonstrate that QoL and several symptoms prevalent in cancer patients cared for in the PCU experienced significant enhancement over the span of just one week. Both groups, patients receiving specialized outpatient PC prior to admission and those without, equally benefited from inpatient PC. All mentioned changes from T0 to T1 are considered not only significant but clinically relevant.

Regional hyperthermia for soft tissue sarcoma - a survey on current practice, controversies and consensus among 12 European centers.

PURPOSE: To analyze the current practice of regional hyperthermia (RHT) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) at 12 European centers to provide an overview, find consensuses and identify controversies necessary for future guidelines and clinical trials. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey study, a 27-item questionnaire assessing clinical subjects and procedural details on RHT for STS was distributed to 12 European cancer centers for RHT. RESULTS: We have identified seven controversies and five consensus points. Of 12 centers, 6 offer both, RHT with chemotherapy (CTX) or with radiotherapy (RT). Two centers only offer RHT with CTX and four centers only offer RHT with RT. All 12 centers apply RHT for localized, high-risk STS of the extremities, trunk wall and retroperitoneum. However, eight centers also use RHT in metastatic STS, five in palliative STS, eight for superficial STS and six for low-grade STS. Pretherapeutic imaging for RHT treatment planning is used by 10 centers, 9 centers set 40-43 °C as the intratumoral target temperature, and all centers use skin detectors or probes in body orifices for thermometry. DISCUSSION: There is disagreement regarding the integration of RHT in contemporary interdisciplinary care of STS patients. Many clinical controversies exist that require a standardized consensus guideline and innovative study ideas. At the same time, our data has shown that existing guidelines and decades of experience with the technique of RHT have mostly standardized procedural aspects. CONCLUSIONS: The provided results may serve as a basis for future guidelines and inform future clinical trials for RHT in STS patients.

Efficacy of ramucirumab combination chemotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction after exposure to checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy as first-line therapy.

FOLFOX plus nivolumab represents a standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) with positive PD-L1 expression. The efficacy of second-line VEGFR-2 inhibition with ramucirumab (RAM) plus chemotherapy after progression to immunochemotherapy remains unclear. Medical records of patients with aGEC enrolled in the randomized phase II AIO-STO-0417 trial after treatment failure to first-line FOLFOX plus nivolumab and ipilimumab were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups based on second-line therapy: RAM plus chemotherapy (RAM group) or treatment without RAM (control group). Eighty three patients were included. In the overall population, progression-free survival (PFS) in the RAM group was superior to the control (4.5 vs 2.9 months). Responders (CR/PR) to first-line immunochemotherapy receiving RAM containing second-line therapy had prolonged OS from start of first-line therapy (28.9 vs 16.5 months), as well as second-line OS (9.6 vs 7.5 months), PFS (5.6 vs 2.9 months) and DCR (53% vs 29%) compared to the control. PD-L1 CPS ≥1 was 42% and 44% for the RAM and the control, respectively. Patients with CPS ≥1 in the RAM group showed better tumor control (ORR 25% vs 10%) and improved survival (total OS 11.5 vs 8.0 months; second-line OS 6.5 vs 3.9 months; PFS 4.5 vs 1.6 months) compared to the control. Prior exposure to first-line FOLFOX plus dual checkpoint inhibition followed by RAM plus chemotherapy shows favorable response and survival rates especially in patients with initial response and positive PD-L1 expression and has the potential to advance the treatment paradigm in aGEC.

Geriatric Assessment of Older Patients Receiving Trabectedin in First-Line Treatment for Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: The E-TRAB Study from The German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG-13).

E-TRAB was a non-interventional, prospective trial investigating the feasibility and predictive value of geriatric assessments (GA) in older STS patients treated with trabectedin as first-line therapy. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life and individual clinical benefit assessed by the patient-reported outcome measures QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE. Further, several GA tools were applied and correlated with clinical outcomes and treatment-related toxicities. The final analyses included 69 patients from 12 German-speaking sites. The median age of patients was 78 years (range: 55 to 88). Baseline data on PROs and GA identified a diverse population of older patients with respect to their global health status, although a large proportion of them suffered from limitations, required geriatric help and had a high risk of morbidity. The Cancer and Age Research Group (CARG) score classified 38%, 29% and 23% of the patients with low, intermediate and high risks for therapy-related side effects, respectively. Median OS was 11.2 months [95%CI: 5.6; 19.4]. The study confirmed that trabectedin as first-line treatment in older patients with STS has an acceptable and manageable safety profile. Potential prognostic factors for clinical outcome and therapy-related toxicity were identified among the GA tools. Long Timed Up and Go (TUG) showed a significant correlation to OS and early death, whereas a high CARG score (>9) was associated with an increase in unplanned hospitalizations and the incidence of toxicities grade ≥ 3.

Ramucirumab, Avelumab, and Paclitaxel as Second-Line Treatment in Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: The Phase 2 RAP (AIO-STO-0218) Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, but treatment combinations and optimal patient selection need to be established. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1) inhibitor avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted among patients with second-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Patients pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine between April 2019 and November 2020 across 10 German centers (median follow-up, 27.4 months [95% CI 22.0-32.9 months]) were included. Data analysis was performed from January to December 2022. Interventions: Patients received ramucirumab at 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, avelumab at 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, and paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was overall survival (OS) rate at 6 months, with the experimental therapy considered insufficiently active with an OS rate of 50% or less and a promising candidate with an OS rate of 65% or greater. Results: Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 patients (median [range] age, 64 [18-81] years; 47 males [70.7%]) were evaluable, including 30 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and 29 patients with gastroesophageal junction. All patients were pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine, and 40 patients (67.8%) had received prior taxanes; 24 of 56 evaluable patients (42.9%) had a PDL-1 combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or greater, centrally assessed. The OS rate at 6 months was 71.2% (95% CI, 61.5%-83.7%). The median OS in the intention-to-treat population (59 patients) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4-12.8 months) overall. Among patients assessable by central pathology, median OS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.2-11.7 months) in 32 patients with a PDL-1 CPS less than 5 and 14.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-22.1 months) in 24 patients with a PDL-1 CPS of 5 or greater (P = .25). Treatment was generally well tolerated, without unexpected toxicities. Patients with higher vs lower than median T cell repertoire richness showed an increased median OS of 20.4 months (95% CI, 7.7-33.0 months) compared with 8.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.81; P = .008). Patients with lower vs higher than median cell-free DNA burden had a median OS of 19.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-29.6 months) compared with 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.2-11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: In this study, the combination of avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab showed favorable efficacy and tolerability in the second-line treatment for metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. A PDL-1 CPS score of 5 or greater, cell-free DNA level less than the median, and T cell repertoire richness greater than the median were associated with increased median OS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03966118.