Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. METHODS: This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confirmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defined retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identification of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00460265. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·8-12·2) in the panitumumab group and 9·0 months (8·1-11·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·873, 95% CI 0·729-1·046; p=0·1403). Median progression-free survival was 5·8 months (95% CI 5·6-6·6) in the panitumumab group and 4·6 months (4·1-5·4) in the control group (HR 0·780, 95% CI 0·659-0·922; p=0·0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11·7 months [95% CI 9·7-13·7] vs 8·6 months [6·9-11·1]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11·0 months [7·3-12·9] vs 12·6 months [7·7-17·4]; 1·00 [0·62-1·61]; p=0·998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·47-1·04]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

Cisplatin and fluorouracil alone or with docetaxel in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase 3 trial of the treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck compared induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF) with cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF), followed by chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned 501 patients (all of whom had stage III or IV disease with no distant metastases and tumors considered to be unresectable or were candidates for organ preservation) to receive either TPF or PF induction chemotherapy, followed by chemoradiotherapy with weekly carboplatin therapy and radiotherapy for 5 days per week. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: With a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (> or =3 years for 69% of patients), significantly more patients survived in the TPF group than in the PF group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; P=0.006). Estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 62% in the TPF group and 48% in the PF group; the median overall survival was 71 months and 30 months, respectively (P=0.006). There was better locoregional control in the TPF group than in the PF group (P=0.04), but the incidence of distant metastases in the two groups did not differ significantly (P=0.14). Rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were higher in the TPF group; chemotherapy was more frequently delayed because of hematologic adverse events in the PF group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who received docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy had a significantly longer survival than did patients who received cisplatin and fluorouracil induction chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00273546 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Gemcitabine administered as a short infusion versus a fixed dose rate in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Previous studies have indicated that, in combination with cisplatin, fixed dose rate gemcitabine may be more efficacious than standard infusion gemcitabine. This open-label, randomised phase II study was aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these regimens as treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Latin American patients. Sixty-four patients were randomised to receive up to six cycles of treatment with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 1 plus either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) over 30 min on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (standard arm, N=33) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) at a fixed dose rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle (FDR arm, N=31). In the standard arm, 9 of 33 (27%) patients responded compared with 6 of 30 (20%) patients in the FDR arm (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% CI, 0.21-2.2; p=0.56). Median overall survival was 7.5 months in the standard arm and 9.9 months in the FDR arm. One-year survival rates were 35% and 37% in the standard arm and the FDR arm, respectively. Patients in the FDR arm experienced more grade 3/4 haematological toxicity than those in the standard arm (48% versus 21%). The results of this trial do not support FDR administration of gemcitabine in preference to the standard administration in Latin American patients with NSCLC.

Vandetanib Versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after prior therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEPHYR).

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and RET signaling. This placebo-controlled trial assessed whether vandetanib conferred an overall survival benefit in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after prior treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor and one or two chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to compare the outcomes between the two arms with respect to overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 924 patients received vandetanib (n = 617) or placebo (n = 307). No significant increase in overall survival was detected in the vandetanib cohort compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95.2% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = .527); median overall survival was 8.5 months versus 7.8 months for vandetanib and placebo patients, respectively. Statistically significant advantages favoring vandetanib were observed for progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.63; P < .001) and objective response rate (2.6% v 0.7%; P = .028). Postprogression therapy was balanced across the cohorts in both number and type. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies of vandetanib 300 mg; common events occurring with a greater frequency in the vandetanib arm versus placebo included diarrhea (46% v 11%), rash (42% v 11%), and hypertension (26% v 3%). CONCLUSION: The study did not demonstrate an overall survival benefit for vandetanib versus placebo. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with vandetanib.