Paclitaxel therapeutic drug monitoring - International association of therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical toxicology recommendations.

Paclitaxel, one of the most frequently used anticancer drugs, is dosed by body surface area, which leads to substantial inter-individual variability in systemic drug exposure. We evaluated clinical evidence regarding the scientific rationale and clinical benefit of individualized paclitaxel dosing based on measured systemic concentrations, known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). In retrospective studies, higher systemic exposure is associated with greater toxicity and efficacy of paclitaxel treatment across several disease types and dosing regimens. In prospective trials, TDM reduces variability in systemic exposure, and has been demonstrated to reduce toxicity while retaining treatment efficacy for 3-weekly dosing in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Despite the demonstrated benefits of paclitaxel TDM, clinical adoption has been limited due to the challenges with sample collection and analysis. Based on our review, we strongly recommend TDM for patients receiving every 3-week paclitaxel in combination with a platinum agent for advanced NSCLC, due to the prospectively demonstrated clinical benefits, and find moderate evidence to recommend TDM for paclitaxel 3-hour infusions for other tumor types and preliminary evidence suggesting potential usefulness for paclitaxel administered by 1-hour infusions.

Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal carcinoma is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the updated German guideline "Diagnosis and Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus-version 3.1" is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on an extensive and systematic evaluation of the published medical literature and the application of well-established methodologies (e.g. Oxford evidence grading scheme, grading of recommendations). Accurate diagnostic evaluation of the primary tumor as well as lymph node and distant metastases is required in order to guide patients to a stage-appropriate therapy after the initial diagnosis of esophageal cancer. In high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma endoscopic resection shall be performed. Whether endoscopic resection is the definitive therapeutic measure depends on the histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. Esophagectomy should be performed minimally invasive or in combination with open procedures (hybrid technique). Because the prognosis in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is poor with surgery alone, multimodality therapy is recommended. In locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative radiochemotherapy should be administered. In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by complete resection or definitive radiochemotherapy without surgery should be performed. In the case of residual tumor in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab should be given. Systemic palliative treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, immunotherapy alone) in unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer depend on histology and are stratified according to PD-L1 and/or Her2 expression.

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.

Three-month life expectancy as inclusion criterion for clinical trials in advanced pancreatic cancer: is it really a valid tool for patient selection?

PURPOSE: To analyze the 3-month life expectancy rate in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients treated within prospective trials from the German AIO study group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted for patients with advanced PC that were treated within five phase II/III studies conducted between 1997 and 2017 (Gem/Cis, Ro96, RC57, ACCEPT, RASH). The primary goal for the current report was to identify the actual 3-month survival rate, a standard inclusion criterion in oncology trials. RESULTS: Overall, 912 patients were included, 83% had metastatic and 17% locally advanced PC; the estimated median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months. Twenty-one percent of the participants survived < 3 months, with a range from 26% in RC57 to 15% in RASH. Significant predictors for not reaching 3-month OS were > 1 previous treatment line (p < 0.001) and performance status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the definition of a life expectancy of > 3 months as a standard inclusion criterion in clinical trials for advanced PC, a significant proportion of study patients does not survive > 3 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00440167 (AIO-PK0104), NCT01729481 (RASH), NCT01728818 (ACCEPT).

German, Austrian, and Swiss guidelines for systemic treatment of gastric cancer.

The updated edition of the German, Austrian and Swiss Guidelines for Systemic Treatment of Gastric Cancer was completed in August 2023, incorporating new evidence that emerged after publication of the previous edition. It consists of a text-based "Diagnosis" part and a "Therapy" part including recommendations and treatment algorithms. The treatment part includes a comprehensive description regarding perioperative and palliative systemic therapy for gastric cancer and summarizes recommended standard of care for surgery and endoscopic resection. The guidelines are based on a literature search and evaluation by a multidisciplinary panel of experts nominated by the hematology and oncology scientific societies of the three involved countries.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab in recurrent or refractory cancer of unknown primary: a phase II trial.

Cancer of unknown primary has a dismal prognosis, especially following failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. 10-20% of patients have a high tumor mutational burden (TMB), which predicts response to immunotherapy in many cancer types. In this prospective, non-randomized, open-label, multicenter Phase II trial (EudraCT 2018-004562-33; NCT04131621), patients relapsed or refractory after platinum-based chemotherapy received nivolumab and ipilimumab following TMBhigh vs. TMBlow stratification. Progression-free survival (PFS) represented the primary endpoint; overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of clinical benefit and safety were the secondary endpoints. The trial was prematurely terminated in March 2021 before reaching the preplanned sample size (n = 194). Among 31 evaluable patients, 16% had a high TMB ( > 12 mutations/Mb). Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI 6-34%), with 7.7% (95% CI 1-25%) vs. 60% (95% CI 15-95%) in TMBlow and TMBhigh, respectively. Although the primary endpoint was not met, high TMB was associated with better median PFS (18.3 vs. 2.4 months) and OS (18.3 vs. 3.6 months). Severe immune-related adverse events were reported in 29% of cases. Assessing on-treatment dynamics of circulating tumor DNA using combined targeted hotspot mutation and shallow whole genome sequencing as part of a predefined exploratory analysis identified patients benefiting from immunotherapy irrespective of initial radiologic response.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS: IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

Ramucirumab plus irinotecan / leucovorin / 5-FU versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction, who failed one prior line of palliative chemotherapy: the phase II/III RAMIRIS study (AIO-STO-0415).

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel in combination with ramucirumab is the standard of care second-line therapy in gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). As the number of taxane pretreated patients in the perioperative or first-line setting is increasing, it is unknown whether these patients benefit from re-applying a taxane in using the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab. Furthermore, the rates of neurotoxicity with first-line FOLFOX or FLOT range from 30%-70%, making second-line taxane-containing therapy less suitable to a meaningful portion of patients. This patient group is likely to benefit from a taxane-free second-line chemotherapy regimen, such as FOLFIRI and ramucirumab (FOLFIRI-Ram). Therefore, the RAMIRIS phase III trial evaluates the effects of the regimen of FOLFIRI-Ram in the second-line treatment after a taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEA. METHODS: The RAMIRIS trial is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II/III study comparing treatment of FOLFIRI-Ram (arm A) with paclitaxel and ramucirumab (arm B). The Phase II is already closed with 111 enrolled patients. In the phase III, 318 taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to FOLFIRI (5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h i.v., irinotecan 180 mg/m2 i.v.; 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus; leucovorin 400 mg/m2 i.v.; on day 1 and 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm A) or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm B). The primary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and objective overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate and safety and quality of life as assessed by EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. DISCUSSION: The already completed RAMIRIS phase II demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of FOLFIRI-Ram. Especially docetaxel-pretreated patients seemed to markedly benefit from FOLFIRI-Ram, with favorable response- and PFS rates and lower toxicity. This offers a rationale for the phase III trial. If the RAMIRIS III trial transfers and confirms the results, they will affect the current treatment guidelines, recommending the combination therapy of FOLFIRI-Ram for taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03081143 Date of registration: 13.11.2015.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment on the Tolerability of Combination Chemotherapy in Older Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Matched-Pair Analysis.

Because of their individual vulnerabilities, treatment decisions for older patients can be difficult. Geriatric assessment (GA) may help to select patients for systemic treatment, but its value is still unproven. Older cancer patients (≥65 years of age) with and without complex GA followed by discussion in the geriatric-oncologic conference, who had been treated in palliative intention with standard combination chemotherapy at the Evang. Kliniken Essen-Mitte, were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had been orally informed about the treatment options and had chosen chemotherapy beside supportive care. To reduce selection bias, the method of propensity-score matching was performed. Patient groups treated in the years 2011-2013 (without GA, group 1) and in the years 2014-2015 (with GA, group 2) were compared regarding different toxicity endpoints. The primary endpoint of the study was defined as numbers of patients with unplanned admission to the hospital or death during first-line chemotherapy and GA should reduce these events by 15%. Overall, 114 patients were evaluated in both groups. The median age was 74 years. Patients suffered from gastrointestinal carcinomas (47%), lung cancer (28%), breast cancer (12%), and other cancer types (3%). Consequently, most patients were treated with platinum-based (41%), fluoropyrimidine-based (35%), or anthracycline-based (13%) combination chemotherapy. In group 2, the events were numerically lower for all toxicity endpoints. The need for a premature stop of treatment was 54.4% in group 1 compared to 29.8% in group 2 (p < 0.01) and also the treatment-related mortality was significantly lower in group 2 (17.5% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.04). The primary endpoint, the rate of unplanned hospital admission, and death was 49.1% versus 35.1% (difference 14.0%), which did not reach the predefined border of 15%. There was a nonsignificant overall survival benefit in the group with GA (22.6 vs. 18.4 months). GA appears useful to better select older patients with advanced cancer for combination chemotherapy. The significant reduction of mortality during chemotherapy justifies the efforts and costs which need to be expended. To evaluate the effect of GA on overall survival, prospective trials are required.

Patterns of care for relapsed oesophageal cancer after initial curative trimodality therapy: Long-term follow-up of the SAKK 75/08 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent oesophageal cancer after the initial curative multimodality treatment is a disease condition with a poor prognosis. There is limited evidence on recurrence patterns and on the optimal therapeutic approach. METHODS: We analysed the pattern of disease recurrence and subsequent therapies in patients with recurrent oesophageal cancer based on prospectively collected data within a predefined subproject of the randomised phase 3 trial Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) 75/08. RESULTS: Among 300 patients included in the SAKK 75/08 trial, tumour recurrence was observed in 103 patients with a median follow-up of 5.8 years. Locoregional recurrence only was found in 26.2% of the patients, 21.4% of patients had both distant and locoregional recurrence and 52.4% of patients had distant recurrence only. Fifty-nine patients (58%) received at least one line of systemic therapy at recurrence, most commonly oxaliplatin-based combination therapies for adenocarcinoma and single-agent chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma. Local therapies, most commonly palliative radiotherapy, were used in 49 patients (48%). Six patients underwent a second curative resection or radiochemotherapy. We found no significant overall survival difference for isolated locoregional recurrence versus distant recurrence (15.1 versus 8.7 months, p = 0.167). In a multivariable Cox regression model, time from oesophagectomy to recurrence and the number of recurrence sites as well as the use of systemic therapy or a second curative local therapy significantly correlated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent oesophageal cancer remains a disease with a poor prognosis and requires multidisciplinary management. A second curative approach for localised disease recurrence may be an option for highly selected patients.

FOLFIRI plus ramucirumab versus paclitaxel plus ramucirumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma with or without prior docetaxel - results from the phase II RAMIRIS Study of the German Gastric Cancer Study Group at AIO.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab and paclitaxel is the standard second-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We report the efficacy and safety analyses of FOLFIRI and ramucirumab versus paclitaxel and ramucirumab after the failure of a platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: This multicenter, investigator initiated, phase II trial randomised patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma to either FOLFIRI plus ramucirumab (RAM) (arm A) or paclitaxel plus RAM (arm B). The primary end-point was 6-month overall survival (OS) rate, with a proportion of ≥65% in arm A considered a positive signal for further investigation. RESULTS: 111 patients (65% of patients had prior docetaxel) were enrolled and 110 patients qualified for ITT population (arm A, 72; arm B, 38). The study did not meet the primary end-point for the comparison with historical control, as 6-month OS rate in the FOLFIRI plus RAM arm was 54% (95% CI 44-67). In between arm comparison, OS was similar (hazard ratio, HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.62-1.52]), while objective response rates (ORRs) and PFS were numerically better in arm A versus arm B (HR for PFS 0.73; ORR, 22% versus 11%). These differences were largely attributed to favourable efficacy results for arm A in docetaxel-pretreated patients (HR, 0.49; ORR, 25% versus 8%). In the safety population (n = 106), grade 3-5 adverse events were similar between arms (arm A, 75%; arm B, 68%). CONCLUSION: The RAMIRIS trial demonstrated feasibility of FOLFIRI plus RAM. While the study was formally negative, it provided a signal to further investigate this combination for the group of patients with previous docetaxel therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03081143.

Predictive Value of Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer - Data From a Randomized German Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: The role of EUS before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCTX) in advanced esophagogastric cancer (EGC) is still unclear. The phase II NEOPECX trial evaluated perioperative chemotherapy with or without panitumumab in this setting. The aim of this sub-study was to investigate the prognostic value of EUS-guided preoperative staging before and after nCTX. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative yuT/yuN stages by EUS were compared with histopathological ypT/ypN stages after curative resection. Reduction in T-stage from baseline to preoperative EUS was defined as downstaging (DS+) and compared to progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients without downstaging (DS-). In addition, preoperative EUS N-stages (positive N+ or negative N-) were correlated with clinical data. RESULTS: The preoperative yuT-stage correlated with the ypT-stage in 48% of cases (sensitivity 48%, specificity 52%), while the preoperative yuN-stage correlated with the ypN-stage in 64% (sensitivity 76%, specificity 52%). Within DS+ patients who were downstaged by ≥ 2 T-categories, a trend towards improved OS was detected (median OS DS+: not reached (NR), median OS DS-: 38.5 months (M), p=0.21). Patients with yuN+ at preoperative EUS had a worse outcome than yuN- patients (median OS yuN-: NR, median OS yuN+: 38.5 M, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of EUS to predict the response after nCTX in patients with advanced EGC is limited. In the current study the endosonographic detection of lymph node metastasis after nCTX indicates a poor prognosis. In the future, preoperative EUS with sectional imaging procedures may be used to tailor treatment for patients with advanced EGC.

How an Oncologist's Intuition Compares to a Geriatric Assessment.

BACKGROUND: A geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended before treating older cancer patients. The goal of this study was to investigate if the additional information from a GA and discussion by a multidisciplinary board (MB) change the treatment recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Older cancer patients (n = 421) were prospectively assessed by an oncologist for eligibility for chemotherapy. A multidimensional GA was performed and a discussion about each patient was held by a MB including a geriatrician. Differences between the judgment made by the oncologist, that of the MB, and the Balducci classification were examined. A statistical model of the MB decision-making process was established and evaluated. RESULTS: The treating oncologist and the MB judged 12 and 15% of the patients as frail, 41 and 38% as vulnerable, and 46 and 47% as fit. Overall, 83% agreement was observed. Based on the Balducci classification, 55% of the patients were frail, 30% were vulnerable, and 15% were fit. Only 34% of congruency with the oncologist's judgment was observed. In a 2-stage logistics model, activities of daily living and the Mini-Mental-State Examination (MMSE) proved most suitable for identifying frail patients. Tinetti's test, age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, living alone, the MMSE, and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment fitted best to distinguish between vulnerable and fit. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the decision of systemic treatment for older patients, the judgment by an experienced oncologist was comparable to that of an MB and both were significantly different from the Balducci classification. For some patients, the additional discussion of GA data in an MB may change treatment decisions.

Adding cetuximab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for first-line treatment of carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP): results of the Phase 2 AIO trial PACET-CUP.

BACKGROUND: Patients with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) have a dismal prognosis, even when treated with multi-agent chemotherapy. We hypothesised that adding the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab to standard first-line chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin would improve PFS and RR in unfavourable CUP. METHODS: This open-labelled, multicentre Phase 2 study included patients with unfavourable, untreated adeno- or undifferentiated CUP. Patients were randomised to receive either paclitaxel/carboplatin (group A) or paclitaxel/carboplatin plus cetuximab (group B) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles followed by cetuximab maintenance in group B. The primary endpoint was PFS in the two groups. Secondary endpoints were RR, toxicity and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One-hundred-and-fifty patients were randomised (group A = 72, group B = 78). The median PFS and OS for all patients were 3.8 and 8.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.9-4.8 and 6.8-9.5). There was no significant difference in PFS (3.7 vs 4.6 months, HR 0.98) or OS (8.1 vs 7.4, HR 1.1) between the two treatment groups. Response rate tended to be better for chemotherapy plus cetuximab compared to chemotherapy alone (22% vs 15%). Adverse events grade ≥3 were comparable between the two groups, except for significantly increased skin toxicity in the cetuximab arm. CONCLUSIONS: Cetuximab plus paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve PFS, OS and RR in metastatic CUP compared to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone. Addition of cetuximab resulted in additional skin toxicity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00894569.

Structured Laser Light Improves Tripping Hazard Recognition for People with Visual Impairments.

Purpose: Using a geometrically derived model and a virtual curb simulator, we quantify the degree to which a wearable device that projects a laser line onto tripping hazards in a pedestrian's path improves visual recognition for people with visual impairments (VI). We confirm this with subjects' performance on computer simulations of low contrast curbs. Methods: We derive geometric expressions quantifying the visual cue users perceive when a single laser line is projected from their hip onto a curb. We show how the efficacy of this cue changes with the angle of the laser line relative to the subject's walking trajectory. We confirm this result with data from three subjects with VI in a simulated curb recognition task in which subjects classified computer images as an "Ascending," "Flat," or "Descending" curb. Results: The derived model predicts that human recognition performance depends strongly on the laser line angle and the subject data confirms this (r2 = 0.86,P < 0.001). The laser line cue improved subject accuracy from a chance level of 33% to 95% for a simulated, one-inch, low-contrast curb at a distance of five feet. Conclusions: Recognition of curbs in low light can be improved by augmenting the scene with a single laser line projected from a user's hip, if the angle of laser line is appropriately selected. Translational Relevance: A majority of people with VI rely on their impaired residual vision for mobility, rather than a mobility aid, resulting in increased injury for this population. Enhancing residual vision could promote safety, increase independence, and reduce medical costs.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of a Proposed Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar MSB11455 Versus the Reference Pegfilgrastim Neulasta in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Double-blind Trial.

PURPOSE: MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®). This pivotal equivalence study (NCT03251248) assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 to the reference product. METHODS: This 2-way, 2-sequence, group-sequential, crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or the reference product (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on Day 1 of each study period. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (absolute neutrophil count; ANC) samples were taken predose and up to day 16 post-dose. Non-compartmental parameters were calculated. Immunogenicity samples were taken pre-dose and up to day 84 after the first dose. Safety was assessed throughout the study. FINDINGS: A total of 292 subjects were randomized to therapy and treated; 244 received both treatments. For all primary pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, 90% repeated confidence intervals of geometric means ratio of MSB11455 to the reference product were within the pre-defined equivalence range (80.00%-125.00%) for AUC0-∞ (96.59-112.82); AUC0-last (97.29-113.96), Cmax (97.13-114.99), maximum observed effect on ANC (98.74-102.39), and area under the effect-time curve from time zero to time to last quantifiable concentration (97.30-100.23). Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity were comparable between treatments. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected with either treatment sequence. IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic equivalence of MSB11455 and the reference product was shown, with comparable immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability between treatments. The study supports the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to the reference product. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03251248.

Immunogenicity and safety of a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MSB11455 versus the reference pegfilgrastim Neulasta® in healthy subjects: A randomized, double-blind trial.

MSB11455 is a proposed biosimilar to the currently licensed reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta® ). This study was designed primarily to compare the immunogenicity of MSB11455 and Neulasta® . As secondary objectives, the safety and tolerability of MSB11455 and Neulasta® were also compared. Healthy adult subjects were randomized to either MSB11455 or Neulasta® , stratified by antipolyethylene glycol (PEG) antibody status at screening and study site. Subjects received a single subcutaneous dose of MSB11455 or Neulasta® (both 6 mg/0.6 mL) on day 1 of each of two study periods (same product in both periods), separated by a washout of 28-35 days. Immunogenicity samples were taken predose and up to day 84 post-first dose. Noninferiority was confirmed if the upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in antidrug antibody (ADA)-positive rates was < 10%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Overall, 336 subjects were randomized and treated (N = 168 in each group). Noninferiority of MSB11455 over Neulasta® was demonstrated for immunogenicity; the difference in confirmed treatment-induced ADA-positive rate between MSB11455 and Neulasta® was -0.6% (upper limit of the exact one-sided adjusted 95% CI: 6.25%). ADAs were mostly directed against the PEG moiety of pegfilgrastim. No filgrastim-specific neutralizing antibodies were detected in either treatment group. Safety and tolerability were as expected for pegfilgrastim, and comparable between treatments. This study supports and strengthens the available evidence for the biosimilarity of MSB11455 to Neulasta® .