Rationale and study design of the CHIPPI-1808 trial: a phase III randomized clinical trial evaluating hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for stage III ovarian cancer patients treated with primary or interval cytoreductive surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynecologic malignancy with high recurrence rates. Because recurrence involves primarily the peritoneum, intraperitoneal chemotherapy is being evaluated as a new approach to treat microscopic peritoneal disease. One trial showed that cisplatin-paclitaxel intraperitoneal chemotherapy with intravenous paclitaxel improved survival but increased morbidity. Another trial reported a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) without increasing the morbidity (P = 0.76) or mortality rates (hazard ratio 0.67, P = 0.02) after adding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreduction. The current trial aims to evaluate the impact of adding HIPEC to primary or interval cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) on the efficacy, safety, treatment feasibility, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized (1 : 1), two-arm, phase III clinical trial that will enroll 432 patients with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III EOC. Patients are randomized to receive or not HIPEC with the standard of care. Inclusion criteria include patients with FIGO stage III EOC, Fallopian tube carcinoma or primary peritoneal cancer who undergo complete primary or interval cytoreduction. The primary objective is to assess DFS of the addition of HIPEC. Secondary objectives are the assessment of OS, safety, return to intended oncologic treatment, quality of life and the trade-off between efficacy and morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The results might help extend the indications of HIPEC to include patients undergoing primary cytoreduction, providing a standardized protocol for HIPEC in EOC management and reliable information on the quality of life after adding HIPEC.

Continuation versus discontinuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic squamous cell oesophageal cancer: A randomised phase II trial (E-DIS).

PURPOSE: The role of chemotherapy has not been established in the treatment of metastatic squamous cell oesophageal cancer (mESCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: E-DIS is a discontinuation trial, aimed at estimating efficacy, quality of life and safety of chemotherapy continuation (CT-CONT) in patients with mESCC who are free from progression after a selection phase of chemotherapy. The primary end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were randomised. The 9-month survival rate was 50% (85% confidence interval [CI]: 37-62%) and 48% (85% CI: 35-60%) in the CT-CONT arm and in the chemotherapy discontinuation (CT-DISC) arm, respectively. The time until definitive deterioration of the global health status (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] core quality of life questionnaire) was 6.6 months (95% CI: 3.3-12.4) for the CT-CONT arm and 4.2 months (95% CI: 2.9-6.3) for the CT-DISC arm, with a hazard ratio (HRCT-DISC/CT-CONT) = 1.44 (95% CI: 0.82-2.53). We observed a beneficial trend in favour of CT-CONT (HR > 1) for most dimensions, including an improvement for three dimensions (dysphagia, eating and oesophageal pain) of the EORTC Oesophageal Cancer Module QLQ-OES18. CONCLUSION: CT-CONT provides an overall survival rate that is similar to CT-DISC. E-DIS trial provides valuable data to support shared decision-making between physicians and patients regarding CT-CONT/DISC.

Complication-related removal of totally implantable venous access port systems: Does the interval between placement and first use and the neutropenia-inducing potential of chemotherapy regimens influence their incidence? A four-year prospective study of 4045 patients.

BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access port systems are widely used in oncology, with frequent complications that sometimes necessitate device removal. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the time interval between port placement and initiation of chemotherapy and the neutropenia-inducing potential of the chemotherapy administered upon complication-related port removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, 4045 consecutive patients were included in this observational, single-center prospective study. The chemotherapy regimens were classified as having a low (<10%), intermediate (10-20%), or high (>20%) risk for inducing neutropenia. RESULTS: The overall removal rate due to complications was 7.2%. Among them, port-related infection (2.5%) and port expulsion (1%) were the most frequent. The interval between port insertion and its first use was shown to be a predictive factor for complication-related removal rates. A cut-off of 6 days was statistically significant (p = 0.008), as the removal rate for complications was 9.4% when this interval was 0-5 days and 5.7% when it was ≥6 days. Another factor associated with port complication rate was the neutropenia-inducing potential of the chemotherapy regimens used, with removal for complications involved in 5.5% of low-risk regimens versus 9.4% for the intermediate- and high-risk regimens (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: An interval of 6 days between placement and first use of the port reduces the removal rate from complications. The intermediate- and high-risk for neutropenia chemotherapy regimens are related to higher port removal rates from complications than low-risk regimens.

How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

BACKGROUND: In the era of personalized medicine, molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) have modified the outcome of some cancer types. The price of tumor control needs to be balanced with toxicity since these new therapies are administered continuously for several months or sometimes for several years. For cytotoxic drugs, the incidence of adverse event (AE) was traditionally reported as frequency and intensity. This simple measure is not sufficient to capture the recurrent nature and duration of AE. This paper presents two methods to better describe the toxicity burden across the time: prevalence and Q-TWiST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Limitation of worst-grade method and advantages of prevalence and Q-TWiST in the analysis of toxicity were illustrated using data from a phase II trial and a hypothetically simulated clinical trial. RESULTS: Prevalence integrates the recurrent nature of AE. Using prevalence, it is possible to obtain a time profile of AE. Q-TWiST method evaluates the weighted time spent in each health state and also considers the recurrent nature of side-effects in order to assess the 'risk-benefit' ratio of a treatment. When interpreting Q-TWiST results, it is necessary to take into account overall survival and progression-free survival and to define a clinically relevant difference according to the setting. CONCLUSION: The two methods presented here capture different effects. They are helpful for physicians in their treatment choice (balance benefit risk), to counsel patients and to optimize supportive care. In order to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making, it is important to encourage the use of alternative statistical methods in the analysis of toxicities associated with MTT. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00541008.