Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): an open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Second-line chemotherapy for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma refractory to platinum and fluoropyrimidines has not shown benefits in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed whether the addition of docetaxel to active symptom control alone can improve survival and HRQoL for patients. METHODS: For this open-labelled, multicentre trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older from 30 UK centres. Patients were eligible if they had an advanced, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction, or stomach that had progressed on or within 6 months of treatment with a platinum-fluoropyrimidine combination. Patients could have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly assigned patients using a central, computerised minimisation procedure to receive docetaxel plus active symptom control, or active symptom control alone (1:1; stratified by disease status, disease site, duration of response to previous chemotherapy, and performance status). Docetaxel was given at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This is the report of the planned final analysis. This study is an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN13366390. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we recruited 168 patients, allocating 84 to each treatment group. After a median follow-up of 12 months [IQR 10-21]) and 161 (96%) deaths (80 in the docetaxel group, 81 in the active symptom control group), median overall survival in the docetaxel group was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.1-5.9) versus 3.6 months (3.3-4.4) in the active symptom control group (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p=0.01). Docetaxel was associated with higher incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (12 [15%] patients vs no patients), infection (15 [19%] patients vs two [3%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (six [7%] patients vs no patients). Patients receiving docetaxel reported less pain (p=0.0008) and less nausea and vomiting (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.02). Global HRQoL was similar between the groups (p=0.53). Disease specific HRQoL measures also showed benefits for docetaxel in reducing dysphagia (p=0.02) and abdominal pain (p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that docetaxel can be recommended as an appropriate second-line treatment for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma that is refractory to treatment with platinum and fluoropyrimidine. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS: For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION: The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Delivery of care, seizure control and medication adherence in women with epilepsy during pregnancy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate service access for women with epilepsy (WWE) during pregnancy; to determine seizure frequency and rates of adherence to anti-seizure medication (ASM). METHODS: Between June 2019-June 2020, pregnant WWE within NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health-board were identified from the National Obstetric Register. A manual review of electronic patient records was undertaken to ensure diagnostic accuracy, as well as determine contact with epilepsy services and documented seizures. Medication dispensing records were obtained six months before and six months after midwifery booking and measures of ASM adherence calculated. RESULTS: Between June 2019-June 2020, 4592 women were registered with a pregnancy. Eighty-five (1.9%) were identified as having active epilepsy (generalised- 40/85 (47.0%), focal- 35/85 (41.2%), unclassified- 10/85 (11.8%)). Preconceptually, 42/85 WWE (49.4%) had input from epilepsy services. Only 59/85 (69.4%) were reviewed during pregnancy (First trimester- 21/59 (35.6%), Second trimester- 25/59 (42.4%) and Third trimester- 13/59 (22.0%)). Seizure occurrence was documented in 37/85 WWE (43.5%) during the antenatal/postnatal period. 71/85 WWE (83.5%) were prescribed ASM. Poor adherence was noted in 50/85 (58.9%) and a documented seizure recorded in 26/50 (52.0%) of these women. CONCLUSION: Too many WWE do not receive input from epilepsy services during pregnancy, leaving some with poor ASM adherence and continued seizures. We aim to use "near-live" obstetric and dispensing data to facilitate early identification of WWE, promoting timely access to epilepsy specialists. This will also provide an opportunity to address concerns regarding ASM safety and allow medication dose changes to be considered.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of ixabepilone in combination with Carboplatin in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: To determine the recommended phase II dose of combination ixabepilone plus carboplatin based on the maximum tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics, optimum schedule, and safety. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with escalating doses of carboplatin plus ixabepilone administered on day 1 (schedule A) or days 1 and 8 (schedule B) of a 21-day cycle. Blood was sampled during cycle 1 for pharmacokinetic analysis of ixabepilone (both schedules) and carboplatin (schedule B). RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were treated with ixabepilone doses ranging from 30 to 50 mg/m2 per 21-day cycle plus carboplatin area under curve (AUC) 5 or 6 (Calvert formula). On schedule A (ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 over 1 hour plus carboplatin AUC 6), 2 of 2 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). On schedule B (ixabepilone 25 mg/m2 over 1 hour on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC 6), 3 of 3 patients experienced DLT. DLT was myelosuppression; however, cumulative sensory neuropathy limited extended dosing on schedule A. Ixabepilone and carboplatin pharmacokinetics were similar to those using either drug as monotherapy, indicating an absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Based on DLTs and tolerability with repeated dosing, the recommended doses were 30 mg/m2 ixabepilone (1-hour infusion) d1 q3w plus carboplatin AUC 6 (schedule A) and 20 mg/m2 ixabepilone (1 hour infusion) d1, d8 q3w plus carboplatin AUC 6 (schedule B). CONCLUSIONS: Data from the present study show the feasibility and tolerability of combination ixabepilone plus carboplatin, with ixabepilone administered on day 1 or on days 1 and 8 on a 21-day cycle.

Gefitinib and EGFR Gene Copy Number Aberrations in Esophageal Cancer.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.