Phase III randomized trial comparing neoadjuvant paclitaxel+platinum to 5-fluorouracil+platinum in esophageal/GEJ squamous cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for locally advanced esophageal/gastroesophageal junction squamous cancer (LAEGSC), 5-fluorouracil (5FU)+platinum, is toxic and logistically challenging; alternative regimens are needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase III randomized open-label non-inferiority trial at Tata Memorial Center, India, in resectable LAEGSC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to three cycles of 3-weekly platinum (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 6) with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (day 1) or 5FU 1000 mg/m2 continuous infusion (days 1-4), followed by surgery. RESULTS: Between August 2014 and June 2022, we enrolled 420 patients; 210 to each arm. Significantly more patients on paclitaxel + platinum (194 (92.3%)] received all 3 chemotherapy cycles than on 5FU+platinum (170 [85.9%]), P = .009. 5FU + platinum caused more grade ≥ 3 toxicities (124 [69.7%]) than paclitaxel + platinum (97 [51.9%]), P = .001. Surgery was performed in 131 (62.4%) patients on 5FU + platinum vs 139 (66.2%) on paclitaxel + platinum, P = .415. Paclitaxel + platinum resulted in higher pathologic primary tumor clearance (33 [25.8%]) vs 17 [15%]; P = .04), and pathologic complete responses in 21.9% compared to 12.4% from 5FU + platinum, P = .053. Median OS was 27.5 months (95% CI, 18.6-43.5) from paclitaxel + platinum, which was non-inferior to 27.1 months (95% CI, 18.8-40.7) from 5FU + platinum; HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.72-1.09); P = .346. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant paclitaxel + platinum chemotherapy is safer, and results in similar R0 resections, higher pathologic tumor clearance and non-inferior survival, compared to 5FU + platinum. Paclitaxel + platinum should replace 5FU + platinum as NACT for resectable LAEGSC. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY INDIA NUMBER: CTRI/2014/04/004516.

Repurposing pantoprazole in combination with systemic therapy in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase I/II randomized study.

Pantoprazole decreases the acidity of the tumor microenvironment by inhibiting proton pumps on the cancer cell. This possibly leads to increased sensitivity to cytotoxic therapy. We conducted a phase I/II randomized controlled trial in adult patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) planned for first-line palliative chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy + / - intravenous (IV) pantoprazole. The primary endpoint in phase I was to determine the maximum safe dose of intravenous pantoprazole, whereas it was progression-free survival (PFS) in phase II. The dose of IV pantoprazole established in phase I was 240 mg. Between Nov'18 and Oct'20, we recruited 120 patients in phase II, 59 on pantoprazole and 61 on the standard arm. Median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60), 80% were men. Systemic therapy was IV cisplatin in 22% and oral-metronomic-chemotherapy (OMC) in 78%. Addition of pantoprazole did not prolong PFS, which was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.07-3.19) in the pantoprazole arm and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.04-3.81, HR, 1.14; 95% CI 0.78-1.66; P = 0.48) in the standard arm. Response rates were similar; pantoprazole arm 8.5%, standard arm 6.6%; P = 0.175. Overall survival was also similar; 5.6 months (95% CI 4.47-8.51) in the pantoprazole arm and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.48-8.54, HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72-1.57; P = 0.75) in the standard arm. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were similar. Thus, pantoprazole 240 mg IV added to systemic therapy does not improve outcomes in patients with advanced HNSCC.

Low-Dose Immunotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer: A Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: The regimens approved for the treatment of advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma are accessible to only 1%-3% of patients in low- and middle-income countries because of their cost. In our previous study, metronomic chemotherapy improved survival in this setting. Retrospective data suggest that a low dose of nivolumab may be efficacious. Hence, we aimed to assess whether the addition of low-dose nivolumab to triple metronomic chemotherapy (TMC) improved overall survival (OS). METHODS: This was a randomized phase III superiority study. Adult patients with recurrent or newly diagnosed advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma being treated with palliative intent with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to TMC consisting of oral methotrexate 9 mg/m2 once a week, celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, and erlotinib 150 mg once daily, or TMC with intravenous nivolumab (TMC-I) 20 mg flat dose once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was 1-year OS. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one patients were randomly assigned, 75 in TMC and 76 in the TMC-I arm. The addition of low-dose nivolumab led to an improvement in the 1-year OS from 16.3% (95% CI, 8.0 to 27.4) to 43.4% (95% CI, 30.8 to 55.3; hazard ratio, 0.545; 95% CI, 0.362 to 0.820; P = .0036). The median OS in TMC and TMC-I arms was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.1) and 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 12.6), respectively (P = .0052). The rate of grade 3 and above adverse events was 50% and 46.1% in TMC and TMC-I arms, respectively (P = .744). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first-ever randomized study to demonstrate that the addition of low-dose nivolumab to metronomic chemotherapy improved OS and is an alternative standard of care for those who cannot access full-dose checkpoint inhibitors.

Audit of screen failure in 15 randomised studies from a low and middle-income country.

Background: Growth and development in patient management occurs via randomised studies. Screen failure is a significant hurdle while conducting randomised studies. There is limited data available from low and middle-income countries about factors resulting in screen failure. Hence, this audit was performed to identify the proportion of patients who screen failed and to elucidate reasons for the same. Methods: This was an audit of 15 randomised studies performed by medical oncology solid tumour unit II of Tata Memorial Centre. The screening logs of these studies were acquired. From the screening logs, data regarding the number of patients who had screen failed & reason for the same were obtained. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: A total of 7,481 patients were screened for 15 randomised clinical studies. Out of these, 3,666 (49.0%) patients were enrolled into trials and 3,815 (51.0%) screen failed. The most common reason for screen failure was 'not meeting inclusion criteria' (54.9%) followed by declining to take treatment (22.2%). Other factors that affect enrolment were 'not willing to stay in the locality of the trial site' (6.2%), being recruited in other studies (3.7%), poor performance status (PS) (3.4%), non-compliance (2.2%), meeting exclusion criteria (0.9%) and 'other' (6.5%). Conclusion: The commonest causes of screen failure in lower and middle-income countries are non-meeting of inclusion criteria followed by declining to take treatment, not willing to stay in locality of trial site, recruited into other studies, poor PS, non-compliance, meeting exclusion criteria & 'other'. This information would help analysing and hence planning of newer strategies to decrease the rate of screen failure.