Enfortumab Vedotin and Pembrolizumab in Untreated Advanced Urothelial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: No treatment has surpassed platinum-based chemotherapy in improving overall survival in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, global, open-label, randomized trial to compare the efficacy and safety of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab with the efficacy and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3-week cycles of enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously on days 1 and 8) and pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg intravenously on day 1) (enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group) or gemcitabine and either cisplatin or carboplatin (determined on the basis of eligibility to receive cisplatin) (chemotherapy group). The primary end points were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients underwent randomization: 442 to the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 444 to the chemotherapy group. As of August 8, 2023, the median duration of follow-up for survival was 17.2 months. Progression-free survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 12.5 months vs. 6.3 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.54; P<0.001), as was overall survival (median, 31.5 months vs. 16.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.58; P<0.001). The median number of cycles was 12 (range, 1 to 46) in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and 6 (range, 1 to 6) in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55.9% of the patients in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group and in 69.5% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab resulted in significantly better outcomes than chemotherapy in patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, with a safety profile consistent with that in previous reports. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and others; EV-302 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04223856.).

Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No new agent has improved overall survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma when added to first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma either to receive intravenous nivolumab (at a dose of 360 mg) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (nivolumab combination) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles, followed by nivolumab (at a dose of 480 mg) every 4 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, or to receive gemcitabine-cisplatin alone every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The objective response and safety were exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization (304 to each group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, overall survival was longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.96; P = 0.02); the median survival was 21.7 months (95% CI, 18.6 to 26.4) as compared with 18.9 months (95% CI, 14.7 to 22.4), respectively. Progression-free survival was also longer with nivolumab-combination therapy than with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.9 months and 7.6 months, respectively. At 12 months, progression-free survival was 34.2% and 21.8%, respectively. The overall objective response was 57.6% (complete response, 21.7%) with nivolumab-combination therapy and 43.1% (complete response, 11.8%) with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. The median duration of complete response was 37.1 months with nivolumab-combination therapy and 13.2 months with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 51.7% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in significantly better outcomes in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma than gemcitabine-cisplatin alone. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 901 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036098.).

Perioperative Pembrolizumab for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with resectable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a perioperative approach that includes both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition may provide benefit beyond either approach alone. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate perioperative pembrolizumab in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Participants with resectable stage II, IIIA, or IIIB (N2 stage) NSCLC were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks, each of which was given with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 13 cycles. The dual primary end points were event-free survival (the time from randomization to the first occurrence of local progression that precluded the planned surgery, unresectable tumor, progression or recurrence, or death) and overall survival. Secondary end points included major pathological response, pathological complete response, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 397 participants were assigned to the pembrolizumab group, and 400 to the placebo group. At the prespecified first interim analysis, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. Event-free survival at 24 months was 62.4% in the pembrolizumab group and 40.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.72; P<0.001). The estimated 24-month overall survival was 80.9% in the pembrolizumab group and 77.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.02, which did not meet the significance criterion). A major pathological response occurred in 30.2% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and in 11.0% of those in the placebo group (difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 13.9 to 24.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001), and a pathological complete response occurred in 18.1% and 4.0%, respectively (difference, 14.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.1 to 18.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001). Across all treatment phases, 44.9% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% of those in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, including 1.0% and 0.8%, respectively, who had grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable, early-stage NSCLC, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved event-free survival, major pathological response, and pathological complete response as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by surgery. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups in this analysis. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; KEYNOTE-671 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03425643.).

Induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without sintilimab in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China (CONTINUUM): a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy and chemotherapy is a recommended first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but the role of PD-1 blockade remains unknown in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We assessed the addition of sintilimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, to standard chemoradiotherapy in this patient population. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at nine hospitals in China. Adults aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed high-risk non-metastatic stage III-IVa locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (excluding T3-4N0 and T3N1) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using blocks of four to receive gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent cisplatin radiotherapy (standard therapy group) or standard therapy with 200 mg sintilimab intravenously once every 3 weeks for 12 cycles (comprising three induction, three concurrent, and six adjuvant cycles to radiotherapy; sintilimab group). The primary endpoint was event-free survival from randomisation to disease recurrence (locoregional or distant) or death from any cause in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03700476) and is now completed; follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2018, and March 31, 2020, 425 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the sintilimab (n=210) or standard therapy groups (n=215). At median follow-up of 41·9 months (IQR 38·0-44·8; 389 alive at primary data cutoff [Feb 28, 2023] and 366 [94%] had at least 36 months of follow-up), event-free survival was higher in the sintilimab group compared with the standard therapy group (36-month rates 86% [95% CI 81-90] vs 76% [70-81]; stratified hazard ratio 0·59 [0·38-0·92]; p=0·019). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 155 (74%) in the sintilimab group versus 140 (65%) in the standard therapy group, with the most common being stomatitis (68 [33%] vs 64 [30%]), leukopenia (54 [26%] vs 48 [22%]), and neutropenia (50 [24%] vs 46 [21%]). Two (1%) patients died in the sintilimab group (both considered to be immune-related) and one (<1%) in the standard therapy group. Grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 20 (10%) patients in the sintilimab group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of sintilimab to chemoradiotherapy improved event-free survival, albeit with higher but manageable adverse events. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine whether this regimen can be considered as the standard of care for patients with high-risk locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation, Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission, and Cancer Innovative Research Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy, or doublet chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer (JCOG1109 NExT): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the prognosis remains poor and more intensive neoadjuvant treatment might be needed to improve patient outcomes. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy, and doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients aged 20-75 years with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 44 centres across Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via a web-based system to receive neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [800 mg/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-5] and cisplatin [80 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 3 weeks [NeoCF]), triplet chemotherapy (three courses of fluorouracil [750 mg/m2 per day on days 1-5], cisplatin [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1], and docetaxel [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1] repeated every 3 weeks [NeoCF+D]), or doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4] and cisplatin [75 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 4 weeks) plus 41·4 Gy radiotherapy [NeoCF+RT]) followed by oesophagectomy with regional lymph node dissection. Randomisation was stratified by T stage and institution. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Analysis of safety included all patients who received at least one course of chemotherapy, and analysis of surgical complications included those who also underwent surgery. This study is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs031180202, and the trial is complete. FINDINGS: A total of 601 patients (529 male individuals and 72 female individuals) were randomly assigned between Dec 5, 2012, and July 20, 2018, with 199 patients in the NeoCF group, 202 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and 200 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Compared with the NeoCF group, during a median follow-up period of 50·7 months (IQR 23·8-70·7), the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the NeoCF+D group (72·1% [95% CI 65·4-77·8] vs 62·6% [55·5-68·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·50-0·92; p=0·006) but not in the NeoCF+RT group (68·3% [61·3-74·3]; HR 0·84, 0·63-1·12; p=0·12). Grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia occurred in two (1%) of 193 patients in the NeoCF group, 32 (16%) of 196 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and nine (5%) of 191 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Treatment-related adverse events leading to termination of neoadjuvant therapy were more common in the NeoCF+D group (18 [9%] of 202 participants) than in the NeoCF+RT group (12 [6%] of 200) and NeoCF group (eight [4%] of 199). There were three (2%) treatment-related deaths during neoadjuvant therapy in the NeoCF group, four (2%) deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and two (1%) deaths in the NeoCF+RT group. Grade 2 or higher postoperative pneumonia, anastomotic leak, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were reported in 19 (10%), 19 (10%), and 28 (15%) of 185 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF group; 18 (10%), 16 (9%), and 19 (10%) of 183 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+D group; and 23 (13%), 23 (13%), and 17 (10%) of 178 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+RT group. The in-hospital deaths following surgery included three deaths in the NeoCF group, two deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and one in the NeoCF+RT group. INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy followed by oesophagectomy resulted in a statistically significant overall survival benefit compared with doublet chemotherapy and might be the new standard of care for locally advanced OSCC who are in good condition in Japan. Neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy did not show significant improvement of survival compared with doublet chemotherapy. FUNDING: Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, randomised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with significant improvements in overall survival compared with placebo, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in people with advanced biliary tract cancer at the pre-planned intermin analysis. In this paper, we present patient-reported outcomes from TOPAZ-1. METHODS: In TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235), participants aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and one or more measurable lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. Participants received 1500 mg durvalumab or matched placebo intravenously every 3 weeks (on day 1 of the cycle) for up to eight cycles in combination with 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 25 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Thereafter, participants received either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable vs recurrent) and primary tumour location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder cancer). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed as a secondary outcome in all participants who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's 30-item Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the 21-item Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Quality of Life Module (QLQ-BIL21). We calculated time to deterioration-ie, time from randomisation to an absolute decrease of at least 10 points in a patient-reported outcome that was confirmed at a subsequent visit or the date of death (by any cause) in the absence of deterioration-and adjusted mean change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2019, and Dec 11, 2020, 685 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group. Overall, 345 (50%) of participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Data for the QLQ-C30 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median follow-up 9·9 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·1]). Data for the QLQ-BIL21 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median follow-up 10·2 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·3]). The proportions of participants in both groups who completed questionnaires were high and baseline scores were mostly similar across treatment groups. For global health status or quality of life, functioning, and symptoms, we noted no difference in time to deterioration or adjusted mean changes from baseline were observed between groups. Median time to deterioration of global health status or quality of life was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6 to 8·9) in the durvalumab group and 6·7 months (5·6 to 7·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·12]). The adjusted mean change from baseline was 1·23 (95% CI -0·71 to 3·16) in the durvalumab group and 0·35 (-1·63 to 2·32) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not have a detrimental effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin is a tolerable treatment regimen in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Site-specific therapy guided by a 90-gene expression assay versus empirical chemotherapy in patients with cancer of unknown primary (Fudan CUP-001): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical chemotherapy remains the standard of care in patients with unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Gene-expression profiling assays have been developed to identify the tissue of origin in patients with CUP; however, their clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of site-specific therapy directed by a 90-gene expression assay compared with empirical chemotherapy in patients with CUP. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was conducted at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China). We enrolled patients aged 18-75 years, with previously untreated CUP (histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or poorly differentiated neoplasms) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, who were not amenable to local radical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive either site-specific therapy or empirical chemotherapy (taxane [175 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1] plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 by intravenous infusion on day 1], or gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8] plus platinum [same as above]). The minimisation factors were ECOG performance status and the extent of the disease. Clinicians and patients were not masked to interventions. The tumour origin in the site-specific therapy group was predicted by the 90-gene expression assay and treatments were administered accordingly. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial has been completed and the analysis is final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03278600). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 182 patients (105 [58%] male, 77 [42%] female) were randomly assigned to receive site-specific therapy (n=91) or empirical chemotherapy (n=91). The five most commonly predicted tissues of origin in the site-specific therapy group were gastro-oesophagus (14 [15%]), lung (12 [13%]), ovary (11 [12%]), cervix (11 [12%]), and breast (nine [10%]). At the data cutoff date (April 30, 2023), median follow-up was 33·3 months (IQR 30·4-51·0) for the site-specific therapy group and 30·9 months (27·6-35·5) for the empirical chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with site-specific therapy than with empirical chemotherapy (9·6 months [95% CI 8·4-11·9] vs 6·6 months [5·5-7·9]; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·49-0·93]; p=0·017). Among the 167 patients who started planned treatment, 46 (56%) of 82 patients in the site-specific therapy group and 52 (61%) of 85 patients in the empirical chemotherapy group had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events; the most frequent of these in the site-specific therapy and empirical chemotherapy groups were decreased neutrophil count (36 [44%] vs 42 [49%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [21%] vs 26 [31%]), and anaemia (ten [12%] vs nine [11%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) patients in the site-specific therapy group and two (2%) in the empirical chemotherapy group. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: This single-centre randomised trial showed that site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay could improve progression-free survival compared with empirical chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated CUP. Site-specific prediction by the 90-gene expression assay might provide more disease information and expand the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients. FUNDING: Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Program for Shanghai Outstanding Academic Leader, and Shanghai Anticancer Association SOAR PROJECT. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in patients with pleural mesothelioma as maintenance therapy after chemotherapy (DENIM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study.

BACKGROUND: Dendritic cell immunotherapy has proven to be safe and induces an immune response in humans. We aimed to establish the efficacy of dendritic cells loaded with allogeneic tumour cell lysate (MesoPher, Amphera BV, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) as maintenance therapy in patients with pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 2/3 study, patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pleural mesothelioma, aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1, and non-progressing disease after four to six cycles of standard chemotherapy (with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve of 5]) were recruited from four centres in Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using block randomisation (block size of 4), stratified by centre and histology (epithelioid vs other), to MesoPher treatment plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Patients received up to a maximum of five MesoPher infusions, with treatment administered on days 1, 15, and 29, and weeks 18 and 30. At each timepoint, participants received an injection of 25 × 106 dendritic cells (two-thirds of the dendritic cells were administered intravenously and a third were injected intradermally). Best supportive care was per local institutional standards. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all participants randomly assigned to treatment (full analysis set) and safety assessed in all randomly assigned participants, and who underwent leukapheresis if they were in the MesoPher group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03610360, and is closed for accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2018, and June 10, 2021, 176 patients were screened and randomly assigned to the MesoPher group (n=88) or best supportive care alone group (n=88). One participant in the MesoPher group did not undergo leukapheresis. Mean age was 68 years (SD 8), 149 (85%) of 176 were male, 27 (15%) were female, 173 (98%) were White, two were Asian (1%), and one (1%) was other race. As of data cutoff (June 24, 2023), after a median follow up of 15·1 months (IQR 9·5-22·4), median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 12·4-20·3; 61 [69%] of 88 died) in the MesoPher group and 18·3 months (14·3-21·9; 59 [67%] of 88 died) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·77-1·57]; log-rank p=0·62). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were chest pain (three [3%] of 87 in the MesoPher group vs two [2%] of 88 in the best supportive care group), dyspnoea (none vs two [2%]), anaemia (two [2%] vs none), nausea (none vs two [2%]), and pneumonia (none vs two [2%]). No deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded. Treatment-related adverse events consisted of infusion-related reactions (fever, chills, and fatigue), which occurred in 64 (74%) of 87 patients in the MesoPher group, and injection-site reactions (itch, erythema, and induration), which occurred in 73 (84%) patients, and all were grade 1-2 in severity. No deaths were determined to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: MesoPher did not show improvement in overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. Immune checkpoint therapy is now standard of care in pleural mesothelioma. Further randomised studies are needed of combinations of MesoPher and immune checkpoint therapy, which might increase efficacy without adding major toxicities. FUNDING: Amphera BV and EU HORIZON.

First-line treatment with KN046, chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, dose escalation, and dose expansion phase Ib trial.

There is growing evidence to suggest that radiotherapy might enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy. This study aimed to assess the possibility of KN046, a bispecific antibody targeting PD-L1 and CTLA-4, combined with chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this open-label, phase Ib trial, patients with advanced ESCC were administered chemotherapy with palliative radiotherapy, and KN046 in the predefined escalation dosages of 1, 3, or 5 mg/kg (every 3 weeks during chemotherapy cycles and every 2 weeks during KN046 maintenance). The chemotherapy regimen constituted cisplatin (75 mg/m2 i.v., d1) and paclitaxel (135-175 mg/m2 ivgtt., d1). Radiotherapy specifics, including site, timing, dose, and fragmentation pattern, were at the investigator's discretion. The primary outcome was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). From May 2019 to April 2021, 25 patients were enrolled across the dosage groups: 3 in 1 mg/kg, 12 in 3 mg/kg, and 10 in 5 mg/kg. No DLT was observed during the dose escalation. The objective response rate was 41.7% (95%CI 22.1-63.4), while the disease control rate was 87.5% (95%CI 67.6-97.3). At a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the median progression-free survival was 7.8 months (95%CI 5.2-9.7) and median overall survival was 15.9 months (95%CI 8.4-NE). Serious adverse events were reported in 48.0% of patients, predominantly leukopenia (16%), immune-mediated enterocolitis (12%), immune-mediated pneumonitis (8%), and neutropenia (8%). Combining KN046 with chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy might be feasible, showing a favorable safety profile and notable efficacy in advanced ESCC patients.

The efficacy and safety of adding PD-1 blockade to induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC-CCRT) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an observational, propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the success of PD-1 blockade in recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), its effect for locoregionally advanced NPC (LANPC) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of adding PD-1 blockade to the current standard treatment (gemcitabine and cisplatin IC  plus cisplatin CCRT ) for LANPC patients. METHODS: From January 2020 to November 2022, 347 patients with non-metastatic high-risk LANPC (stage III-IVA, excluding T3-4N0) were included. Of the 347 patients, 268 patients were treated with standard treatment (IC-CCRT), and 79 received PD-1 blockade plus IC-CCRT (PD-1 group). For the PD-1 group, PD-1 blockade was given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 9 cycles (3 induction and 6 adjuvant). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) (i.e. freedom from local/regional/distant failure or death). The propensity score matching (PSM) with the ratio of 1:2 was performed to control confounding factors. RESULTS: After PSM analysis, 150 patients receiving standard treatment and 75 patients receiving additional PD-1 blockade remained in the current analysis. After three cycles of IC, the PD-1 group had significantly higher rates of complete response (defined as disappearance of all target lesions; 24% vs. 9%; P = 0.006) and complete biological response (defined as undetectable cell-free Epstein-Barr virus DNA, cfEBV DNA; 79% vs. 65%; P = 0.046) than that in the standard group. And the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity during IC was 47% in the PD-1 group and 41% in the standard group, with no significant difference (P = 0.396). During follow-up period, additional PD-1 blockade to standard treatment improved 3-year DFS from 84 to 95%, with marginal statistical significance (HR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.06-1.19; P = 0.064). CONCLUSION: Additiaonl PD-1 blockade to gemcitabine and cisplatin IC and adjuvant treatment results in significant improvement in tumor regression, cfEBV DNA clearance, superior DFS, and comparable toxicity profiles in high-risk LANPC patients.

Postoperative radiotherapy with docetaxel versus cisplatin for high-risk oral squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized phase II trial with exploratory analysis of ITGB1 as a potential predictive biomarker.

BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) causes significant mortality and morbidity worldwide. Surgical resection with adjuvant radiotherapy remains the standard treatment for locally advanced resectable OSCC. Results from landmark trials have established postoperative concurrent cisplatin-radiotherapy (Cis-RT) as the standard treatment for OSCC patients with high-risk pathologic features. However, cisplatin-related toxicity limits usage in clinical practice. Given the need for effective but less toxic alternatives, we previously conducted a single-arm trial showing favorable safety profiles and promising efficacy of concurrent docetaxel-radiotherapy (Doc-RT). METHODS: In this randomized phase 2 trial, we aimed to compare Doc-RT with the standard Cis-RT in postoperative OSCC patients. Eligible patients had AJCC stage III-IV resectable OSCC with high-risk pathologic features. Two hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive concurrent Doc-RT or Cis-RT. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), locoregional-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and adverse events (AEs). Integrin ß1 (ITGB1) expression was analyzed as a biomarker for efficacy. RESULTS: After a median 28.8-month follow-up, 2-year DFS rates were 63.7% for Doc-RT arm and 56.1% for Cis-RT arm (p = 0.55). Meanwhile, Doc-RT demonstrated comparable efficacy to Cis-RT in OS, LRFS, and DMFS. Doc-RT resulted in fewer grade 3 or 4 hematological AEs. Low ITGB1 was associated with improved Doc-RT efficacy versus Cis-RT. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial directly compared Doc-RT with Cis-RT for high-risk postoperative OSCC patients, with comparable efficacy and less toxicity. ITGB1 merits further validation as a predictive biomarker to identify OSCC patients most likely to benefit from Doc-RT. Findings indicate docetaxel may be considered as a concurrent chemoradiation option in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . NCT02923258 (date of registration: October 4, 2016).

Initial Experience Using Laparoscopic HIPEC for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis: Safety and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal metastases (PM) develop in approximately 20% of patients with gastric cancer (GC). For selected patients, treatment of PM with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results. This report aims to describe the safety and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic HIPEC for GC/PM. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who had GC and PM treated with laparoscopic HIPEC (2018-2022). The HIPEC involved cisplatin and mitomycin C (MMC) or MMC alone. The primary end point was perioperative safety. RESULTS: The 22 patients in this study underwent 27 procedures. The mean age was 58 ± 13 years. All the patients were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0 or 1 (55 and 45%, respectively). Five patients underwent a second laparoscopic HIPEC, with a median of 126 days (interquartile range [IQR], 117-166 days) between procedures. The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 4 (IQR, 2-9), and the median hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days). No 30-day readmissions or complications occurred. Eight patients (36%) underwent gastrectomy (CRS ± HIPEC). After an average follow-up period of 11 months, 7 (32%) of the 22 patients were alive. The median overall survival was 11 months (IQR, 195-739 days) from the initial procedure and 19.3 months (IQR, 431-1204 days) from the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic HIPEC appears to be safe with minimal perioperative complications. Approximately one third of the patients undergoing initial laparoscopic HIPEC ultimately proceeded to cytoreduction and gastrectomy. Preliminary survival data from this highly selected cohort suggest that the addition of laparoscopic HIPEC to systemic chemotherapy does not compromise other treatment options. These initial results suggest that laparoscopic HIPEC may offer benefit to patients with GC and PM and aid in the selection of patients who may benefit from curative-intent resection.

Important Predictive Factors for the Prognosis of Patients With Peritoneal Metastasis of Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated predictive factors for patients with peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer (PMGC) who underwent conversion cytoreductive surgery (C-CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal intraoperative chemotherapy (HIPEC) after responding to induction chemotherapy (laparoscopic HIPEC [LHIPEC]) followed by concomitant systemic and intraperitoneal chemotherapy (bidirectional intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy [BIC]). METHODS: Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed for 62 patients with PMGC between January 2017 and December 2022. The patients underwent LHIPEC and BIC induction chemotherapy using intraperitoneal docetaxel (30 mg/m2) and cisplatin (30 mg/m2), and intravenous chemotherapy for three cycles. The predictive parameters for progression-free and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. The optimal cutoff values for Ki-67 parameters were assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: The study retrospectively examined 36 (58 %) of 62 patients who responded to induction therapy and underwent C-CRS or HIPEC. A Ki-67 index lower than 10 (p = 0.000), lymph node involvement (LNI) less than 2 (p = 0.039), and an omental lesion size score lower than 0.5 cm (p = 0.002) were predictive of recurrence-free and overall survival in addition to completeness of cytoreduction and the peritoneal cancer index. Cox regression analysis showed that the independent factors associated with recurrence-free survival were decreased Ki-67 expression (≥10 % vs <10 %) (hazard ratio [HR] 4.7; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.6-5.210; p = 0.020) and LNI higher than 2 (HR 1.92; 95% CIS 0.923-4.0; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node involvement and decreased Ki-67 expression are independent predictive factors of recurrence-free survival for patients with PMGC after induction chemotherapy.

Enhancing the Efficacy of HIPEC Through Bromelain: A Preclinical Investigation in Appendiceal Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Appendiceal cancer (AC) excessive mucin production is a barrier to heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) drug delivery. Bromelain is a pineapple stem extract with mucolytic properties. We explored bromelain treatment effects against mucinous AC in a patient-derived tumor organoid (PTO) model and an AC cell line. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PTOs were fabricated from tumor specimens obtained from patients with AC undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC. PTOs underwent HIPEC treatment with bromelain, cisplatin, and mitomycin C (MMC) at 37 °C and 42 °C with and without bromelain pretreatment. RESULTS: From October 2020 to May 2023, 16 specimens were collected from 13 patients with low-grade (12/16, 75%) and high-grade AC (4/16, 25%). The mucin-depleting effects of bromelain were most significant in combination with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) compared with bromelain (47% versus 10%, p = 0.0009) or NAC alone (47% versus 12.8%, p = 0.0027). Bromelain demonstrated > 31% organoid viability reduction at 60 min (p < 0.001) and > 66% in 48 h (p < 0.0001). Pretreatment with bromelain increased cytotoxicity of both cisplatin and MMC HIPEC conditions by 31.6% (p = 0.0001) and 35.5% (p = 0.0001), respectively. Ki67, CK20, and MUC2 expression decreased after bromelain treatment; while increased caspase 3/7 activity and decreased Bcl-2 (p = 0.009) and Bcl-xL (p = 0.01) suggest induction of apoptosis pathways. Furthermore, autophagy proteins LC3A/B I (p < 0.03) and II (p < 0.031) were increased; while ATG7 (p < 0.01), ATG 12 (p < 0.04), and Becline 1(p < 0.03), expression decreased in bromelain-treated PTOs. CONCLUSIONS: Bromelain demonstrates cytotoxicity and mucolytic activity against appendiceal cancer organoids. As a pretreatment agent, it potentiates the cytotoxicity of multiple HIPEC regimens, potentially mediated through programmed cell death and autophagy.

Utility of Initial Tumor Reduction as a Prognostic Factor in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: While a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen using docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (NAC-DCF) is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) in Japan, a reliable marker for early prediction of treatment efficacy remains unclear. We investigated the utility of the tumor response after a first course of NAC-DCF as a post-surgery survival predictor in patients with EC. METHODS: We enrolled 150 consecutive patients who underwent NAC-DCF followed by surgery for EC between September 2009 and January 2019. The initial tumor reduction (ITR), defined as the percentage decrease in the shorter diameter of the tumor after the first course of NAC-DCF, was evaluated using computed tomography. We analyzed the relationship between ITR, clinicopathological parameters, and survival. RESULTS: The median ITR was 21.07% (range -11.45 to 50.13%). The optimal cut-off value for ITR for predicting prognosis was 10% (hazard ratio [HR] 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98-5.51), based on univariate logistic regression analyses for recurrence-free survival (RFS). Compared with patients with ITR <10%, patients with ITR ≥10% showed a significantly higher proportion of ypM0 (80.0% vs. 92.5%) and responders in terms of overall clinical response (50.0% vs. 80.8%). Multivariate analysis for RFS revealed that ypN2-3 (HR 2.78, 95% CI 1.67-4.62), non-response in terms of overall clinical response (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.10-3.18), and ITR <10% (HR 2.48, 95% CI 1.42-4.32) were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor response after the first course of NAC-DCF may be a good predictor of survival in patients with EC who underwent NAC-DCF plus surgery.

Influence of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy-Chemotherapy on Perioperative Outcomes in Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the perioperative outcomes for patients who had locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy (IO) and chemotherapy versus a matched cohort of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) alone. METHODS: A single-center non-randomized phase 2 trial was undertaken with locally advanced (cT3-4 and/or N+) EAC, and 49 patients completed neoadjuvant avelumab + docetaxel, cisplatin, 5FU (DCF) and esophagectomy between February 2018 and February 2020. These patients were matched with contemporary patients (January 2018 to June 2020) who met the inclusion criteria but received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (NAC) with a comparable docetaxel-based therapy. The postoperative outcomes then were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: For this study, 99 patients with locally advanced EAC underwent esophagectomy and met the enrolment criteria. Of these patients, 50 received NAC alone and 49 received IO + NAC. Baseline characteristics such as age, gender, and clinical stage were comparable between the two groups. Operative approach and rate of minimally invasive esophagectomy (~ 60%) were similar in the two groups. For the NAC-alone and IO + NAC groups, the respective overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups (50% vs. 51% [p = 0.91] and 20% vs. 26% [p = 0.44], respectively), with concordant rates for anastomotic leak (6 [12%] vs. 6 [12%]; p = 0.86) and respiratory complications (13 [26%] vs. 11 [22%]; p = 0.68). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of hospital length of stay or 30- and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSION: The addition of immunotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma does not appear to alter perioperative short-term outcomes significantly after esophagectomy.

KEYNOTE-434 part B: A phase 1 study evaluating the combination of epacadostat, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy in Japanese patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus epacadostat (indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 inhibitor) was well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors in part A of the nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1 KEYNOTE-434 study (NCT02862457). We report results from part B, which evaluated epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients aged ≥ 20 years had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC with no prior systemic therapy, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received epacadostat 100 mg orally twice-daily, pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every-3-weeks for ≤ 35 cycles, and 4 cycles of chemotherapy (cohort 1: cisplatin plus pemetrexed, non-squamous; cohort 2: carboplatin plus pemetrexed, non-squamous; cohort 3: carboplatin plus paclitaxel, squamous or non-squamous). Primary endpoint was incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Following unfavorable results from other studies, a protocol amendment removed epacadostat from the treatment combination. RESULTS: Of 19 patients, 7 were enrolled in cohort 1, and 6 each in cohorts 2 and 3. Median follow-up was 13.7 (range, 4.2-27.8) months. Five of 17 (29%) DLT-evaluable patients experienced ≥ 1 DLT (cohort 1, n = 1; cohorts 2 and 3, n = 2 each); most commonly maculopapular rash (grade 3, n = 3) and increased alanine aminotransferase (grade 2, n = 1; grade 3, n = 2). All patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs); 58% experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs. Objective response rate was 47%. CONCLUSION: The combination of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy was found to be tolerable in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02862457.

Dose escalation of tolinapant (ASTX660) in combination with standard radical chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer : a study protocol for a phase 1b TiTE-CRM clinical trial (CRAIN) in UK secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with an estimated 342,000 deaths worldwide in 2020. Current standard of care in the UK for locally advanced cervical cancer is concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly cisplatin, yet 5-year overall survival rates are only 65% with a distant relapse rate of 50%. Inhibitors of Apoptosis Proteins (IAPs) are often overexpressed in cancer cells and associated with tumour progression and resistance to treatment. Tolinapant, developed by Astex Pharmaceuticals, is an IAP antagonist with an additional mechanism of action via down-regulation of NF-kB, an important regulator in cervical cancer. Preclinical studies performed using tolinapant in combination with cisplatin and radiotherapy showed inhibition of tumour growth and enhanced survival. There is therefore a strong rationale to combine tolinapant with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: CRAIN is a phase Ib open-label, dose escalation study to characterise the safety, tolerability and initial evidence for clinical activity of tolinapant when administered in combination with cisplatin based CRT. Up to 42 patients with newly diagnosed cervix cancer will be recruited from six UK secondary care sites. The number of participants and the duration of the trial will depend on toxicities observed and dose escalation decisions, utilising a TiTE-CRM statistical design. Treatment will constist of standard of care CRT with 45 Gy external beam radiotherapy given in 25 daily fractions over 5 weeks with weekly cisplatin 40mg/m2. This is followed by brachytherapy for which common schedules will be 28 Gy in 4 fractions high-dose-rate or 34 Gy in 2 fractions pulsed-dose-rate. Tolinapant will be administered in fixed dose capsules taken orally daily for seven consecutive days as an outpatient on alternate weeks (weeks 1, 3, 5) during chemoradiation. Dose levels for tolinapant which will be assessed are: 60 mg; 90 mg (starting level); 120 mg; 150 mg; 180 mg. Escalation will be guided by emerging safety data and decisions by the Safety Review Committee. DISCUSSION: If this trial determines a recommended phase II dose and shows tolinapant to be safe and effective in combination with CRT, it would warrant future phase trials. Ultimately, we hope to provide a synergistic treatment option for these patients to improve outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2021-006555-34 (issued 30th November 2021); ISRCTN18574865 (registered 30th August 2022).

Pembrolizumab plus either epacadostat or placebo for cisplatin-ineligible urothelial carcinoma: results from the ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 study.

BACKGROUND: Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC. METHODS: ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46-55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33-43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

Association of low adherence to weekly cisplatin with outcomes in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommends consideration of weekly cisplatin as an alternative option for patients with head and neck cancer undergoing definitive chemoradiation. However, in a recent phase III trial (ConCERT), 20% of patients treated with weekly cisplatin could not receive a total of 200 mg/m2, and the association of low adherence to weekly cisplatin and cancer control outcomes remains unclear. To fill this knowledge gap, we performed an observational cohort study of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing definitive chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried for patients with non-metastatic head and neck cancer who underwent definitive chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2) between November 2007 and April 2023. Adherence to weekly cisplatin was defined as receiving at least 5 cycles with a total cumulative dose of 200 mg/m2. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazard multivariable (MVA) analyses. Logistic MVA was performed to identify variables associated with low adherence to weekly cisplatin. Fine-Gray MVA was performed to analyze failure outcomes with death as a competing event. RESULTS: Among 119 patients who met our criteria, 51 patients (42.9%) had low adherence to weekly cisplatin. Median follow up was 19.8 months (interquartile range 8.8-65.6). Low adherence to weekly cisplatin was associated with worse overall survival (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-5.47, p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (aHR 2.32, 95% CI 1.29-4.17, p = 0.005). It was also associated with worse distant failure (aHR 4.55, 95% CI 1.19-17.3, p = 0.03), but not locoregional failure (aHR 1.61, 95% CI 0.46-5.58, p = 0.46). KPS < 90 was the only variable associated with low adherence to weekly cisplatin (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.67, 95% CI 1.10-6.65, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that over 40% of patients underwent fewer than 5 weekly cisplatin cycles and that low adherence to weekly cisplatin was an independent, adverse prognostic factor for worse survival and distant failure outcomes. Those with reduced adherence to weekly cisplatin were more likely to have poor performance status. Further studies are warranted to improve the adherence to chemotherapy and outcomes.