Tipifarnib as maintenance therapy did not improve disease-free survival in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia at high risk of relapse: Results of the phase III randomized E2902 trial.

PURPOSE: Despite the achievement of complete remission with chemotherapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), relapse is common and the majority of patients will die of their disease. Patients who achieve a remission after refractory or relapsed disease as well as elderly patients have a very high rate of relapse even if they achieve a complete remission. A phase 3 randomized ECOG-ACRIN-led intergroup study was conducted to determine whether post-remission therapy with the farnesyl transferase inhibitor, tipifarnib (R115777), improved the disease-free survival (DFS) of adult patients with AML in complete remission (CR), at high risk for relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with AML in remission after salvage therapy and/or over age 60 in first remission were enrolled in this study. They were randomly assigned to treatment with tipifarnib or observation (control). The primary objective was to compare the disease-free survival (DFS) between the two arms based on intention to treat, which includes all randomized patients. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were enrolled on the study. Median DFS was 8.9 vs 5.3 months, for tipifarnib vs observation (one-sided p = 0.026) and did not cross the pre-specified boundary to call the study positive. For the 134 eligible patients, median DFS was 10.8 vs 5.3 months for those randomized to tipifarnib vs observation (one-sided p = 0.008). Moreover in an ad hoc evaluation of all women (n = 71) median DFS was 12.1 vs 3.9 months for tipifarnib vs observation (one-sided p = 0.0004) while median OS was 26.5 vs 8.4 months respectively (one-sided p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study was not able to demonstrate a benefit to tipifarnib as maintenance therapy in patients with AML in remission. While subsets of patients may indeed benefit, additional studies would be needed to elucidate that benefit which is unlikely given that other seemingly better options have since become available.

Maintenance olaparib for patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation (SOLO1/GOG 3004): 5-year follow-up of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for treatment regimens that increase the chance of long-term remission and possibly cure for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. In the primary analysis of SOLO1/GOG 3004, the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation; median progression-free survival was not reached. Here, we report an updated, post-hoc analysis of progression-free survival from SOLO1, after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: SOLO1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done across 118 centres in 15 countries, that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and with BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer with a complete or partial clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via a web-based or interactive voice-response system to receive olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo tablets orally as maintenance monotherapy for up to 2 years; randomisation was by blocks and was stratified according to clinical response after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients, treatment providers, and data assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Efficacy is reported in the intention-to-treat population and safety in patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The data cutoff for this updated, post-hoc analysis was March 5, 2020. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01844986) and is ongoing but closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013, and March 6, 2015, 260 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib and 131 to placebo. The median treatment duration was 24·6 months (IQR 11·2-24·9) in the olaparib group and 13·9 months (8·0-24·8) in the placebo group; median follow-up was 4·8 years (2·8-5·3) in the olaparib group and 5·0 years (2·6-5·3) in the placebo group. In this post-hoc analysis, median progression-free survival was 56·0 months (95% CI 41·9-not reached) with olaparib versus 13·8 months (11·1-18·2) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·25-0·43]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (57 [22%] of 260 patients receiving olaparib vs two [2%] of 130 receiving placebo) and neutropenia (22 [8%] vs six [5%]), and serious adverse events occurred in 55 (21%) of 260 patients in the olaparib group and 17 (13%) of 130 in the placebo group. No treatment-related adverse events that occurred during study treatment or up to 30 days after discontinuation were reported as leading to death. No additional cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported since the primary data cutoff, including after the 30-day safety follow-up period. INTERPRETATION: For patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation, after, to our knowledge, the longest follow-up for any randomised controlled trial of a PARP inhibitor in this setting, the benefit derived from 2 years' maintenance therapy with olaparib was sustained beyond the end of treatment, extending median progression-free survival past 4·5 years. These results support the use of maintenance olaparib as a standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca; Merck Sharpe & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Treatment efficacy by hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy vs. sorafenib after liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical efficacies of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) vs. sorafenib as sequential maintenance therapy following liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) for locally advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients undergoing HAIC with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (HAIC-maintain group, n = 151) or sorafenib (Sorafenib-maintain group, n = 37) after LD-CCRT were consecutively enrolled. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment response rates. RESULTS: The median OS among HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups were 15.9 and 24.3 months (p = 0.287), whereas the median PFS were 8.1 and 9.1 months (p = 0.651), respectively. During the planned treatments, the radiological objective response rate (54.3% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.246), and conversion rate to surgical resection or liver transplantation after successful down-staging (15.9% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.657) were comparable between the HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups. Similar results were found after the inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score-matching analyses. Regarding treatment-related adverse events, the HAIC-maintain group showed worse profiles in terms of leukopenia (all grades [p = 0.001] and grades 3 or 4 [p = 0.041]) and hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.001) than the Sorafenib-maintain group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall clinical efficacies between the sequential treatment of HAIC vs. sorafenib after LD-CCRT were comparable for locally advanced HCC.

Impact of early tumor shrinkage and depth of response on the outcomes of panitumumab-based maintenance in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving highly active first-line combination treatments, early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DoR) are associated with survival, but their influence on outcomes during maintenance therapy is unknown. The Valentino study showed inferior PFS in 229 RAS wild-type mCRC patients randomized to panitumumab plus FOLFOX followed by maintenance with panitumumab vs. panitumumab + 5-FU/LV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After blinded independent central review of ETS (≥20% reduction of the sum of target lesions) and DoR in patients enrolled in Valentino, the prognostic and predictive role of such parameters was investigated, along with their combination with PRESSING panel (uncommon genomic alterations associated with anti-EGFRs resistance beyond RAS and BRAF). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-six patients were included (ETS in 132 [67.3%], median DoR: 44.1%). Both ETS and DoR ≥34% were associated with longer mPFS (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001) and mOS (p = 0.006 and p < 0.001). The PFS benefit of 5-FU/LV added to panitumumab maintenance, reported in the study, was independent from ETS and DoR status (interaction tests NS for both PFS and OS). However, outcomes were extremely poor in patients who received single-agent panitumumab and had no-ETS (mPFS and mOS: 7.7 and 18.7 months) or DoR < 34% (mPFS and mOS: 6.5 and 18 months). Combining PRESSING panel ('molecular hyperselection') and response dynamics allowed to stratify both PFS (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001 for ETS and DoR, respectively) and OS (p < 0.001 and p = 0.017 for ETS and DoR, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ETS and DoR allow on-treatment anticipation of outcomes following an anti-EGFR-based strategy planning de-escalation, and poor radiological response may guide enrolment in crossover strategy trials. As in vivo markers of drug sensitivity, ETS and DoR may be integrated with several patient- and tumor-related factors to wisely drive decision-making on upfront treatment duration and intensity.

Age-stratified clinical performance and survival of patients with IDH-wildtype glioblastoma homogeneously treated by radiotherapy with concomitant and maintenance temozolomide.

OBJECTIVE: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-wildtype glioblastomas are the most malignant glial tumours. Median survival is only 14-16 months after diagnosis, with patients aged ≥ 65 years reportedly showing worse outcome. This study aimed to further evaluate the prognostic role of age in a homogenously treated patient cohort. METHODS: The study includes 132 IDH-wildtype glioblastoma patients treated between 2013 and 2017 with open resection followed by radiotherapy with concomitant and maintenance temozolomide. Patients were dichotomized into a non-elderly (< 65 years) and an elderly (≥ 65 years) group. Extent of resection and the O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status were determined for each tumour. Clinical and radiological follow-up data were obtained at 6 weeks after the end of radiation therapy and thereafter in 3-month intervals. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in univariate and multivariate cox regression analyses. RESULTS: The elderly group consisted of 58 patients (median age: 70.5 years) and the non-elderly group of 74 patients (median age: 55 years). Median pre- and postoperative operative Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score and National Institutes of Stroke Scale (NIHSS) were not significantly different between the groups, but KPS and ECOG scores became significantly worse in the elderly group at 6 weeks after termination of radiation therapy. Neither PFS nor OS differed significantly between the age groups. Patients with MGMT promoter-methylated tumours survived longer. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients in good pre- and postoperative clinical conditions may show similar outcome as younger patients when treated according to standard of care. However, elderly patients may suffer more frequently from clinical deterioration following chemoradiotherapy. In both age groups, MGMT promoter methylation was linked to longer PFS and OS.

Phase III Trial of Avelumab Maintenance After First-Line Induction Chemotherapy Versus Continuation of Chemotherapy in Patients With Gastric Cancers: Results From JAVELIN Gastric 100.

PURPOSE: The role of maintenance therapy for gastric (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) is unclear. We investigated avelumab (anti-programmed death ligand-1 [PD-L1]) maintenance after first-line induction chemotherapy for GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: JAVELIN Gastric 100 was a global, open-label, phase III trial. Eligible patients had untreated, unresectable, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic GC or GEJC. Patients without progressive disease after 12 weeks of first-line chemotherapy with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine were randomly assigned 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or continued chemotherapy, stratified by region (Asia v non-Asia). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) after induction chemotherapy in all randomly assigned patients or the PD-L1-positive randomly assigned population (≥ 1% of tumor cells; 73-10 assay). RESULTS: A total of 805 patients received induction; 499 were randomly assigned to avelumab (n = 249) or continued chemotherapy (n = 250). Median OS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 12.0 months) versus 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 12.4 months) and 24-month OS rate was 22.1% versus 15.5% with avelumab versus chemotherapy, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P = .1779). In the PD-L1-positive population (n = 54), the HR for OS was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.23; P = .6352). In an exploratory analysis of the PD-L1-positive population, defined as combined positive score ≥ 1 (22C3 assay; n = 137), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 8.7 to 17.3 months) with avelumab versus 11.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.6 months) with chemotherapy (unstratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.05). With avelumab and chemotherapy, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 149 (61.3%) and 184 (77.3%) patients, including grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in 31 (12.8%) and 78 (32.8%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not demonstrate superior OS with avelumab maintenance versus continued chemotherapy in patients with advanced GC or GEJC overall or in a prespecified PD-L1-positive population.

Current and future perspectives of maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma.

While the outcome of patients with multiple myeloma has significantly improved over the last two decades, the disease remains incurable for the majority of patients. With the advent of novel agents, there has been a shift towards prolonged therapy as opposed to fixed-duration therapy, aimed at improving progression-free survival and overall survival. Evidence favoring continuous therapy has emerged over the last 2 decades and in the context of maintenance after proteasome inhibitor plus immunomodulatory drug induction followed by high dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation, this leads to >80% overall survival at 5 years. Maintenance therapy specifically has been demonstrated to correlate with increasing depth of disease response with a significant proportion of patients who remain minimal residual disease positive at the end of induction therapy achieving minimal residual disease negativity with maintenance therapy both in clinical trials and selected real world populations. As the survival improves, it is crucial to identify patients who are projected to have better survival and spare them toxicities arising from indefinite maintenance therapy. The role of minimal residual disease in this context is being investigated in numerous clinical trials and in the next few years the goal should be to use this in a rational way to achieve the ability to identify patients who would require continuation or escalation of therapy to improve their projected survival as well as to identify the group of patients in whom maintenance therapy could perhaps be time-limited without compromising their survival. Here we review the evidence for maintenance therapy from the key trials in the past years, present an overview of the current landscape and our perspective of maintenance therapy in the future.

Randomized Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed Versus Observation for Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: CALGB 30901.

BACKGROUND: The role of maintenance therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is unknown. We performed a randomized phase II trial to determine if continuation of pemetrexed after first-line pemetrexed and platinum would improve progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with unresectable MPM, without disease progression following 4 to 6 cycles of pemetrexed and platinum were randomized 1:1 to observation or continuation of pemetrexed until progression, stratified by number of cycles (< 6 or 6), cis- or carboplatin containing regimen, and histology. Study size was calculated based on the assumption that observation would produce a median PFS of 3 months and pemetrexed would yield median PFS of 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were registered from December 2010 to June 2016. The study closed early after 53 patients were randomized; 49 eligible (22 on the observation arm and 27 on the pemetrexed arm) were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-11.9 months) on observation and 3.4 months (95% CI, 2.8-9.8 months) on pemetrexed (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.51-1.90; P = .9733). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 9.3-28.7 months) for observation, and 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.5-26.0 months) for pemetrexed (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.44-1.71; P = .6737). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities on the pemetrexed arm included anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), neutropenia (4%), and fatigue (4%). A higher baseline level of soluble mesothelin-related peptide was associated with worse PFS (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.00-3.46; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Maintenance pemetrexed following initial pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy does not improve PFS in patients with MPM.

Utility and safety of maintenance chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer across various performance status categories: real-world experience.

Maintenance chemotherapy (MC) with pemetrexed is a commonly used strategy in nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, most of the available evidence is from subjects with good performance status (PS), while data on the real-world utility and safety of this strategy in subjects with various categories of PS is limited. We performed a retrospective analysis of multicentric data of 3 centers from India. All patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer who received MC with pemetrexed after induction chemotherapy were included. Subjects were divided into 2 groups based on baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score before initiation of induction chemotherapy as good PS (<2) and poor PS (≥2). Progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity were assessed in the study population. A total of 290 subjects were included in the study, of whom a significant proportion (n = 104, 35.9%) had poor PS. Survival was better in subjects with good PS as compared to those with poor PS (1-year progression-free survival: 43.5% vs 29.8%, P = 0.021; 1-year overall survival: 61.8% vs 48.1%, P = 0.023). Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in 14.5% of subjects during MC and was not different between both groups (P = 0.287). Renal dysfunction was more common in subjects who received ≥10 cycles of MC (10.7% vs 4.2%, P = 0.040). MC with pemetrexed appeared to be beneficial and safe in the real-world setting regardless of the baseline PS. However, survival benefit was more pronounced in subjects with good PS at baseline. Renal dysfunction was more frequently encountered in subjects who received prolonged MC.

Response-adapted lenalidomide maintenance in newly diagnosed myeloma: results from the phase III GMMG-MM5 trial.

The MM5 trial aimed at demonstrating a progression-free survival (PFS) difference in continued vs. response-adapted (in case of complete response, CR) lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed, transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (MM). Patients were equally randomized to receive induction therapy with PAd (bortezomib/doxorubicin/dexamethasone) or VCD (bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone), high-dose melphalan and autologous blood stem cell transplantation, and LEN consolidation, followed by either LEN MT for a fixed duration of 2 years (LEN-2Y) or until achievement of CR (LEN-CR, intention-to-treat population n = 502): arms A1:PAd + LEN-2Y (n = 125), B1:PAd + LEN-CR (n = 126), A2:VCD + LEN-2Y (n = 126), B2:VCD + LEN-CR (n = 125). In the LEN-CR group (B1 + B2), n = 88/17.5% patients did not start or discontinued LEN MT due to CR. There was no PFS (p = 0.60, primary endpoint) nor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.15) difference between the four study arms. On pooled LEN MT strategies, OS (hazard ratio, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.42, p = 0.03) but not PFS (HR = 1.15, p = 0.20) was shorter in LEN-CR (B1 + B2) vs. LEN-2Y (A1 + A2) groups. PFS was shortened on landmark analyses from the start of LEN MT in patients being in CR in the LEN-CR group (LEN-CR vs. LEN-2Y, HR = 1.84, p = 0.02). OS from first progression was shortened in the LEN-CR vs. LEN-2Y group (HR = 1.60, p = 0.01). LEN MT should be applied beyond CR for at least 2 years.

A randomized phase 2 trial of apatinib vs observation as maintenance treatment following first-line induction chemotherapy in extensive- stage small cell lung cancer.

Background The 5-year survival rate for extensive-disease small-cell lung carcinoma (ED-SCLC) is only 1%. Recently, apatinib exerted promising effects on cancer patients after failure of first-line chemotherapy. Methods This study enrolled 24 ED-SCLC patients to study the efficacy and toxicity of apatinib in combination with chemotherapy and maintenance therapy. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included toxicity and safety. Apatinib was given 250 mg/day during the chemotherapy interval, and as maintenance therapy after 4-6 cycles until the patient progressed, died, or was intolerant to drug toxicity. The study further evaluated the cytotoxicity, cell-cycle arrest and apoptotic induction of apatinib in A549 and H446 cells. Results There was no difference in short-term efficacy between combined and chemotherapy groups. Long-term efficacy showed that the median PFS was 7.8 months and 4.9 months in combination and chemotherapy groups, respectively [p = 0.002, HR(95%CI): 0.18(0.06-0.60)]. The median OS was 12.1 months and 8.2 months in combination and chemotherapy groups, respectively [p = 0.023, HR(95%CI): 0.38 (0.16-0.90)]. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that apatinib combined with chemotherapy was an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS. The ECOG score was an independent prognostic factor affecting OS. In vitro analysis showed that apatinib inhibited cell proliferation and caused cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. Conclusion Apatinib combination/maintenance therapy showed promising efficacy and safety to extend OS/PFS in ED-SCLC and will be a potent therapeutic option in future practice. Although the scale of this study is small, further research on large sample sizes is needed.

Vinorelbine and continuous low-dose cyclophosphamide as maintenance chemotherapy in patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS 2005): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For more than three decades, standard treatment for rhabdomyosarcoma in Europe has included 6 months of chemotherapy. The European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) aimed to investigate whether prolonging treatment with maintenance chemotherapy would improve survival in patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. METHODS: RMS 2005 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 102 hospitals in 14 countries. We included patients aged 6 months to 21 years with rhabdomyosarcoma who were considered to be at high risk of relapse: those with non-metastatic incompletely resected embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma occurring at unfavourable sites with unfavourable age (≥10 years) or tumour size (>5 cm), or both; those with any non-metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma with nodal involvement; and those with non-metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma but without nodal involvement. Patients in remission after standard treatment (nine cycles of ifosfamide, vincristine, dactinomycin with or without doxorubicin, and surgery or radiotherapy, or both) were randomly assigned (1:1) to stop treatment or continue maintenance chemotherapy (six cycles of intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and daily oral cyclophosphamide 25 mg/m2, on days 1-28). Randomisation was done by use of a web-based system and was stratified (block size of four) by enrolling country and risk subgroup. Neither investigators nor patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were overall survival and toxicity. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-000217-35, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00339118, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2006, and Dec 21, 2016, 371 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two groups: 186 to stop treatment and 185 to receive maintenance chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·3 months (IQR 32·4-89·4). In the intention-to-treat population, 5-year disease-free survival was 77·6% (95% CI 70·6-83·2) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 69·8% (62·2-76·2) without maintenance chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·45-1·02]; p=0·061), and 5-year overall survival was 86·5% (95% CI 80·2-90·9) with maintenance chemotherapy versus 73·7% (65·8-80·1) without (HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·32-0·86]; p=0·0097). Toxicity was manageable in patients who received maintenance chemotherapy: 136 (75%) of 181 patients had grade 3-4 leucopenia, 148 (82%) had grade 3-4 neutropenia, 19 (10%) had anaemia, two (1%) had thrombocytopenia, and 56 (31%) had an infection. One (1%) patient had a grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (neurotoxicity). Two treatment-related serious adverse events occurred: one case of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion and one of a severe steppage gait with limb pain, both of which resolved. INTERPRETATION: Adding maintenance chemotherapy seems to improve survival for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma. This approach will be the new standard of care for patients with high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma in future EpSSG trials. FUNDING: Fondazione Città della Speranza, Association Léon Berard Enfant Cancéreux, Clinical Research Hospital Program (French Ministry of Health), and Cancer Research UK.

Bendamustine and rituximab in elderly patients with low-tumour burden follicular lymphoma. Results of the LYSA phase II BRIEF study.

The treatment of low-tumour burden follicular lymphoma (LTBFL) remains a challenge. Rituximab-based strategies may be improved by adding chemotherapy. This Lymphoma Study Association multicentre phase II study assessed rituximab and bendamustine in 63 patients with untreated LTBFL who were aged over 60 years old and had a follicular lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score ≥2. Induction comprised 4 weekly cycles of rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously combined with 2 cycles of bendamustine 90 mg/m2 days 1-2 with a 28-day interval, followed by twelve cycles of 375 mg/m2 rituximab maintenance therapy every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu), at 12 weeks. Median age was 67·4 years and median FLIPI was 3. Ultimately, 18 patients (29%) had high tumour burden according to Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires criteria. The 12-week CR/CRu rate was 54·0% and the overall response rate was 93·7%. Surprisingly, 3 patients died during maintenance (2 sepsis, 1 neoplasm). Progression-free survival was 85·4% at 24 months. In LTBFL patients with FLIPI ≥2, two cycles of rituximab and bendamustine result in a CR rate of 54·0%. However, the treatment-related deaths observed do not allow this regimen to be recommended for LTBFL patients aged over 60 years. EudraCT: 2010-020757-14; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01313611.

The role of ixazomib as an augmented conditioning therapy in salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and as a post-ASCT consolidation and maintenance strategy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (ACCoRd [UK-MRA Myeloma XII] trial): study protocol for a Phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell tumour with an approximate annual incidence of 4500 in the UK. Therapeutic options for patients with MM have changed in the last decade with the arrival of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. Despite these options, almost all patients will relapse post first-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). First relapse management (second-line treatment) has evolved in recent years with an expanding portfolio of novel agents, driving response rates influencing the durability of response. A second ASCT, as part of relapsed disease management (salvage ASCT), has been shown to prolong the progression-free survival and overall survival following a proteasome inhibitor-containing re-induction regimen, in the Cancer Research UK-funded National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma X (Intensive) study. It is now recommended that salvage ASCT be considered for suitable patients by the International Myeloma Working Group and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG35 guidance. METHODS/DESIGN: ACCoRd (Myeloma XII) is a UK-nationwide, individually randomised, multi-centre, multiple randomisation, open-label phase III trial with an initial single intervention registration phase aimed at relapsing MM patients who have received ASCT in first-line treatment. We will register 406 participants into the trial to allow 284 and 248 participants to be randomised at the first and second randomisations, respectively. All participants will receive re-induction therapy until maximal response (four to six cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone). Participants who achieve at least stable disease will be randomised (1:1) to receive either ASCTCon, using high-dose melphalan, or ASCTAug, using high-dose melphalan with ixazomib. All participants achieving or maintaining a minimal response or better, following salvage ASCT, will undergo a second randomisation (1:1) to consolidation and maintenance or observation. Participants randomised to consolidation and maintenance will receive consolidation with two cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone, and maintenance with ixazomib until disease progression. DISCUSSION: The question of how best to maximise the durability of response to salvage ASCT warrants clinical investigation. Given the expanding scope of oral therapeutic agents, patient engagement with long-term maintenance strategies is a real opportunity. This study will provide evidence to better define post-relapse treatment in MM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10038996 . Registered on 15 December 2016.

Is there a current change of maintenance treatment in ovarian cancer? An updated review of the literature.

Maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer has been introduced and evaluated in many large randomized trials; however, its efficacy is still unclear and includes concerns for both short-term and longer-term side effects. Thus far, some therapies that have been studied in this setting showed a delay in tumor progression but unfortunately no improvement in overall survival has been noticed. The introduction of new chemotherapeutic agents redirected research efforts. Assessing benefits of prolonged therapy and its impact in terms of toxicity is considerably important for the decision to administer such treatments. The purpose of this article was to provide an update on the randomized trials and review the role of maintenance therapy in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Interleukin-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with acute myeloid leukaemia in first complete remission.

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is a malignant cancer of hematopoietic stem cells. The treatment of AML consists of two treatment phases: the remission induction phase to achieve a rapid, complete remission (CR) and the consolidation phase to achieve a durable molecular remission. People in CR are at risk of AML relapse, and people with relapsed AML have poor survival prospects. Thus, there is a continuous need for treatments to further improve prognosis. Interleukin-2 (IL-2), an immune-stimulatory cytokine, is an alternative to standard treatment for people with AML to maintain the efficacy after consolidation therapy. Maintenance therapy is not an integral part of the standard treatment for AML. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for people with AML in first CR, but the effect of IL-2 is not yet fully established. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-2 as maintenance therapy for children and adults with AML who have achieved first CR and have not relapsed. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1950 to August 2015), EMBASE (1950 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015), CBM (1978 to August 2015), relevant conference proceedings (2000 to 2015), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (since inception to August 2015) of ongoing and unpublished trials. In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IL-2 with no treatment in people with AML who had achieved first CR and had not relapsed. We did not identify studies comparing IL-2 versus best supportive care or maintenance chemotherapy or studies comparing IL-2 plus maintenance chemotherapy versus maintenance chemotherapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data with a predefined extraction form, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data on the following outcomes: disease-free survival, overall survival, event-free survival, treatment-related mortality, adverse events, and quality of life. We measured the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes and dichotomous outcomes with hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio, respectively. We used inverse-variance method to combine HRs with fixed-effect model unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 1665 participants, comparing IL-2 with no treatment. Six studies included adult participants, and three studies included both adults and children. However, the latter three studies did not report data for children, thus we were unable to conduct subgroup analysis of children. One Chinese study did not report any outcomes of interest for this review. We included six trials involving 1426 participants in the meta-analysis on disease-free survival, and included five trials involving 1355 participants in the meta-analysis on overall survival. There is no evidence for difference between IL-2 group and no-treatment group regarding disease-free survival (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, P = 0.37; quality of evidence: low) or overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16, P = 0.35; quality of evidence: moderate). Based on one trial of 161 participants, IL-2 exerted no effect on event-free survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32, P = 0.88; quality of evidence: low). Adverse events (including thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, malaise/fatigue, and infection/fever) were more frequent in participants receiving IL-2, according to one trial of 308 participants. No mortality due to adverse events was reported. None of the included studies reported treatment-related mortality or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for a difference between IL-2 maintenance therapy and no treatment with respect to disease-free survival or overall survival of people with AML in first CR; however, the quality of the evidence is moderate or low, and further research is likely or very likely to have an important impact on the estimate or our confidence in the estimate. Adverse events seem to be more frequent in participants treated with IL-2, but the quality of the evidence is very low and our confidence in the estimates is very uncertain. Thus, further prospective randomised trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn on these issues.

Bayesian network meta-comparison of maintenance treatments for stage IIIb/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with good performance status not progressing after first-line induction chemotherapy: results by performance status, EGFR mutation, histology and response to previous induction.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have suggested that maintenance treatments improve outcomes for patients not progressing after first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, physicians have little guidance on selecting which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. Here, we report a systematic review and network meta-analysis of maintenance treatments in subgroups determined by performance status (PS), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, histology and response to induction. METHODS: PubMed and conference proceedings were reviewed and individual study relative efficacy measures were meta-analysed in a Bayesian hierarchical model. The primary outcome, overall survival (OS), was evaluated in terms of (i) posterior surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), (ii) probability of being best treatment, (iii) probability of outperforming no maintenance, and (iv) posterior median hazard ratio (95% credible interval). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. FINDINGS: Twelve trials evaluating eight maintenance treatments in 3850 patients were meta-analysed. Selected maintenance treatments showed clinically meaningful benefits of ⩾20% reduction in hazards of death with ⩾90% probability of outperforming no maintenance in terms of OS: (i) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous), continue gemcitabine, or switch to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for PS 0 patients, (ii) switch to pemetrexed (nonsquamous) for PS 1 patients, (iii) switch to EGFR TKI for EGFR mutation positive patients, (iv) switch to or continue pemetrexed or switch to EGFR TKI for nonsquamous patients, (v) continue gemcitabine for squamous patients, (vi) switch to docetaxel or continue gemcitabine for responders to induction, or (vii) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or switch to EGFR TKI for patients with stable disease post-induction. INTERPRETATION: Maintenance treatments show clinically meaningful survival benefits in good performance status patients with advanced NSCLC not progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Benefits are optimised by targeting specific maintenance to individual patients guided by PS, EGFR mutation status, histology and response to induction.

Metastatic medulloblastoma in adults: outcome of patients treated according to the HIT2000 protocol.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rarity of metastatic medulloblastoma in adults, knowledge about the efficacy and toxicity of intensified chemotherapy and radiotherapy is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with disseminated medulloblastoma registered in the HIT2000 trial as observational patients and treated according to one of two different treatment regimens were analysed. The sandwich strategy MET-HIT2000AB4 consists of postoperative chemotherapy, hyperfractionated craniospinal radiotherapy, and maintenance chemotherapy; while the HIT'91 maintenance strategy consists of postoperative craniospinal radiotherapy, and maintenance chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (median age: 30.7years), diagnosed from November 2001 to July 2009, and treated in 18 institutions in Germany and Austria, were eligible. The median follow-up of surviving patients was 3.99years. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS)±standard error (SE) were 52%±12% and 91%±6%, respectively. The survival was similar in both treatment groups (HIT'91 maintenance strategy, n=9; MET-HIT2000AB4 sandwich strategy, n=14). Patients with large cell/anaplastic medulloblastoma relapsed and died (n=2; 4-year EFS/OS: 0%) and OS differed compared to patients with classic (n=11; 4-year EFS/OS: 71%/91%) and desmoplastic medulloblastoma (n=10; 4-year EFS/OS: 48%/100%), respectively (p=0.161 for EFS and p=0.033 for OS). Treatment-induced toxicities consisted mainly of neurotoxicity (50% of patients, ⩾ °II), followed by haematotoxicity and nephrotoxicity/ototoxicity. The professional outcome appeared to be negatively affected in the majority of evaluable patients (9/10). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of adults with metastatic medulloblastoma according to the intensified paediatric HIT2000 protocol was feasible with acceptable toxicities. EFS rates achieved by both chemotherapeutic protocols were favourable and appear to be inferior to those obtained in older children/adolescents with metastatic disease.