Four versus six cycles of CHOP chemotherapy in combination with six applications of rituximab in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma with favourable prognosis (FLYER): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Six cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) are the standard treatment for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the FLYER trial, we assessed whether four cycles of CHOP plus six applications of rituximab are non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP in a population of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with favourable prognosis. METHODS: This two-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial was done at 138 clinical sites in Denmark, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years, with stage I-II disease, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, ECOG performance status 0-1, and without bulky disease (maximal tumour diameter <7·5 cm). Randomisation was computer-based and done centrally in a 1:1 ratio using the Pocock minimisation algorithm after stratification for centres, stage (I vs II), and extralymphatic sites (no vs yes). Patients were assigned to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. CHOP comprised cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2), doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and vincristine (1·4 mg/m2, with a maximum total dose of 2 mg), all administered intravenously on day 1, plus oral prednisone or prednisolone at the discretion of the investigator (100 mg) administered on days 1-5. Rituximab was given at a dose of 375 mg/m2 of body surface area. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. No radiotherapy was planned except for testicular lymphoma treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after 3 years. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. A non-inferiority margin of -5·5% was chosen. The trial, which is completed, was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00278421. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2005, and Oct 7, 2016, 592 patients were enrolled, of whom 295 patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of R-CHOP and 297 were assigned to receive four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. Four patients in the four-cycles group withdrew informed consent before the start of treatment, so 588 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After a median follow-up of 66 months (IQR 42-100), 3-year progression-free survival of patients who had four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab was 96% (95% CI 94-99), which was 3% better (lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference was 0%) than six cycles of R-CHOP, demonstrating the non-inferiority of the four-cycles regimen. 294 haematological and 1036 non-haematological adverse events were documented in the four-cycles group compared with 426 haematological and 1280 non-haematological adverse events in the six-cycles group. Two patients, both in the six-cycles group, died during study therapy. INTERPRETATION: In young patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and favourable prognosis, four cycles of R-CHOP is non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP, with relevant reduction of toxic effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be reduced without compromising outcomes in this population. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe.

Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is effective in metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This study reports on the safety and efficacy of the docetaxel-based triplet FLOT (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) as a perioperative therapy for patients with locally advanced, resectable tumours. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we randomly assigned 716 patients with histologically-confirmed advanced clinical stage cT2 or higher or nodal positive stage (cN+), or both, resectable tumours, with no evidence of distant metastases, via central interactive web-based-response system, to receive either three pre-operative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 plus either 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as continuous intravenous infusion or 1250 mg/m2 capecitabine orally on days 1 to 21 (ECF/ECX; control group) or four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 docetaxel, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin and 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil as 24-h infusion on day 1 (FLOT; experimental group). The primary outcome of the trial was overall survival (superiority) analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01216644. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2010, and Feb 10, 2015, 716 patients were randomly assigned to treatment in 38 German hospitals or with practice-based oncologists. 360 patients were assigned to ECF/ECX and 356 patients to FLOT. Overall survival was increased in the FLOT group compared with the ECF/ECX group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.63 to 0·94]; median overall survival, 50 months [38·33 to not reached] vs 35 months [27·35 to 46·26]). The number of patients with related serious adverse events (including those occurring during hospital stay for surgery) was similar in the two groups (96 [27%] in the ECF/ECX group vs 97 [27%] in the FLOT group), as was the number of toxic deaths (two [<1%] in both groups). Hospitalisation for toxicity occurred in 94 patients (26%) in the ECF/ECX group and 89 patients (25%) in the FLOT group. INTERPRETATION: In locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, perioperative FLOT improved overall survival compared with perioperative ECF/ECX. FUNDING: The German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe), Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai, and Stiftung Leben mit Krebs Foundation.

Phase I study of orally administered S-1 in combination with epirubicin and oxaliplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors and chemotherapy-naïve advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study investigated the safety and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 when combined with epirubicin and oxaliplatin (EOS). METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled in a 3 + 3 design with S-1 dose escalation (two planned cohorts) performed according to the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). On day 1 of each 21-day cycle, patients received epirubicin 50 mg/m2 followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 (maximum 8 cycles) and then S-1 [20 mg/m2 (cohort 1) or 25 mg/m2 (cohort 2), twice daily]: first dose, evening of day 1; subsequent administration on days 2-14, twice daily; last dose, morning of day 15 (unlimited number of S-1 cycles). After protocol amendment, enrollment in a third cohort was restricted to patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer. RESULTS: DLT was reported for two of the five patients in cohort 2, defining 20 mg/m2 twice daily as the MTD of S-1 combined with epirubicin and oxaliplatin in heavily pretreated patients. Thirteen patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer were subsequently enrolled and treated at an S-1 dose level of 25 mg/m2 twice daily; no DLTs were reported; median overall survival was 13.1 months. Of the 11 evaluable patients, three (27 %) had partial responses and seven (64 %) had stable disease. The safety profile was in line with expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The promising activity of EOS (S-1 dose level, 25 mg/m2 twice daily) and acceptable safety profile support further clinical development of this combination for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer.

New Perspectives in the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer: S-1 as a Novel Oral 5-FU Therapy in Combination with Cisplatin.

Oral fluoropyrimidines have been available for more than 10 years. Capecitabine is well established in treating solid tumors in Europe. S-1 (Teysuno®), an oral formulation containing the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug tegafur and the two enzyme modulators gimeracil and oteracil, has not been available in non-Asia countries until recently. In Japan, S-1 in combination with cisplatin is the recommended first-line treatment in patients with gastric cancer. In Europe, the first trials with S-1 were disappointing due to high unacceptable incidences of adverse events. Pharmacokinetic studies showed differences in Asian and Caucasian patients; therefore, a new non-Asian study program was initiated, which led to the pivotal phase 3 trial First-Line Advanced Gastric Cancer Study (FLAGS). In FLAGS, 1,053 patients with advanced gastric cancer from 24 non-Asian countries were enrolled. S-1 plus cisplatin showed no overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to 5-FU plus cisplatin. The primary endpoint superior OS was not met but better tolerability was shown. A post hoc noninferiority OS and safety analysis showed that S-1 plus cisplatin has the same efficacy as 5-FU plus cisplatin but a more favorable safety profile. This led to the approval of S-1 in combination with cisplatin in gastric cancer in Europe in 2011. This article reviews the mode of action of S-1, pivotal study results from an EU point of view, and future perspectives.

Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is effective in metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but has not yet been evaluated in the context of resectable patients. Here we report findings from the phase 2 part of the phase 2/3 FLOT4 trial, which compared histopathological regression in patients treated with a docetaxel-based triplet chemotherapy versus an anthracycline-based triplet chemotherapy before surgical resection. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study, eligible participants were recruited from 28 German oncology centres. Patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer who had clinical stage cT2 or higher, nodal positive (cN+) disease, or both were randomly assigned (1:1) to either three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous epirubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and either fluorouracil 200 mg/m2 as continuous intravenous infusion or capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 orally (two doses of 625 mg/m2 per day) on days 1 to 21 (ECF/ECX group) or four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of docetaxel 50 mg/m2, intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, intravenous leucovorin 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2600 mg/m2 as a 24 h infusion, all on day 1 (FLOT group). Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive web-response system based on a sequence generated with blocks (block size 2) stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, location of primary tumour, age, and nodal status. No masking was done. Central assessment of pathological regression was done according to the Becker criteria. The primary endpoint was pathological complete regression (tumour regression grade TRG1a) and was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment excluding patients who had surgery but did not provide resection specimens for central evaluation. The study (including the phase 3 part) has completed enrolment, but follow-up is ongoing and this is an interim analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01216644. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2010, and Aug 10, 2012, 300 patients (152 patients in the ECF/ECX group; 148 patients in the FLOT group) were enrolled into the phase 2 part of the study, 265 of whom (137 in the ECF/ECX group; 128 in the FLOT group) were assessable on a modified intention-to-treat basis. 119 (93%) of 128 patients in the FLOT group and 126 (92%) of 137 patients in the ECF/ECX group were given all planned preoperative cycles of treatment. FLOT was associated with significantly higher proportions of patients achieving pathological complete regression than was ECF/ECX (20 [16%; 95% CI 10-23] of 128 patients vs eight [6%; 3-11] of 137 patients; p=0·02). 44 (40%) of 111 patients in the ECF/ECX group and 30 (25%) of 119 patients in the FLOT group had at least one serious adverse event involving a perioperative medical or surgical complication. The most common non-surgical grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (52 [38%] of 137 patients in the ECF/ECX group vs 67 [52%] of 128 patients in the FLOT group), leucopenia (28 [20%] vs 36 [28%]), nausea (23 [17%] vs 12 [9%]), infection (16 [12%] vs 15 [12%]), fatigue (19 [14%] vs 11 [9%]), and vomiting (13 [10%] vs four [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Perioperative FLOT was active and feasible to administer, and might represent an option for patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-eosophageal junction adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: None.

Omission of dacarbazine or bleomycin, or both, from the ABVD regimen in treatment of early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma (GHSG HD13): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of bleomycin and dacarbazine in the ABVD regimen (ie, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) has been questioned, especially for treatment of early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma, because of the drugs' toxicity. We aimed to investigate whether omission of either bleomycin or dacarbazine, or both, from ABVD reduced the efficacy of this regimen in treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, multicentre trial (HD13) we compared two cycles of ABVD with two cycles of the reduced-intensity regimen variants ABV (doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine), AVD (doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), and AV (doxorubicin and vinblastine), in patients with newly diagnosed, histologically proven, classic or nodular, lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphoma. In each treatment group, 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) was given after both cycles of chemotherapy were completed. From Jan 28, 2003, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a minimisation method to the four groups. Because of high event rates, assignment to the AV and ABV groups stopped early, on Sept 30, 2005, and Feb 10, 2006; assignment to ABVD and AVD continued (1:1) until Sept 30, 2009. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the experimental variants compared with ABVD in terms of freedom from treatment failure (FFTF), by excluding a difference of 6% after 5 years corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.72, via a 95% CI. Analyses reported here include qualified patients only, and between-group comparisons include only patients recruited during the same period. The trial was registered, number ISRCTN63474366. FINDINGS: Of 1502 qualified patients, 566, 198, 571, and 167 were randomly assigned to receive ABVD, ABV, AVD, or AV, respectively. 5 year FFTF was 93.1%, 81.4%, 89.2%, and 77.1% with ABVD, ABV, AVD, and AV, respectively. Compared with ABVD, inferiority of the dacarbazine-deleted variants was detected with 5 year differences of -11.5% (95% CI -18.3 to -4.7; HR 2.06 [1.21 to 3.52]) for ABV and -15.2% (-23.0 to -7.4; HR 2.57 [1.51 to 4.40]) for AV. Non-inferiority of AVD compared with ABVD could also not be detected (5 year difference -3.9%, -7.7 to -0·1; HR 1.50, 1.00 to 2.26). 178 (33%) of 544 patients given ABVD had WHO grade III or IV toxicity, compared with 53 (28%) of 187 given ABV, 142 (26%) of 539 given AVD, and 40 (26%) of 151 given AV. Leucopenia was the most common event, and highest in the groups given bleomycin. INTERPRETATION: Dacarbazine cannot be omitted from ABVD without a substantial loss of efficacy. With respect to our predefined non-inferiority margin, bleomycin cannot be safely omitted either, and the standard of care for patients with early-stage favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma should remain ABVD followed by IFRT. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe and Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research.

The role of radiotherapy and intrathecal CNS prophylaxis in extralymphatic craniofacial aggressive B-cell lymphomas.

To define the role of radiotherapy and intrathecal prophylaxis in extralymphatic craniofacial involvement (ECFI) of aggressive B-cell lymphoma, we analyzed 11 consecutive German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group trials. ECFI occurred in 290/4155 (7.0%) patients (orbita, 31; paranasal sinuses, 93; main nasal cavity, 38; tongue, 27; remaining oral cavity, 99; salivary glands, 54). In a multivariable analysis adjusted for International Prognostic Index rituximab improved event-free and overall survival both in patients with and without ECFI. Three-year event-free (79% vs 79%; P = .842) and overall survival (86% vs 88%; P = .351) rates were similar in 145 patients receiving and 57 not receiving radiotherapy. Without rituximab, the 2-year cumulative rate of central nervous system (CNS) disease was increased in 205 ECFI patients compared with 2586 non-ECFI patients (4.2% vs 2.8%; P = .038), whereas this was not observed with rituximab (1.6% in 83 ECFI vs 3.4% in 1252 non-ECFI patients; P = .682). In 88 ECFI patients who received intrathecal prophylaxis with methotrexate, the 2-year rate of CNS disease was 4.2% compared with 2.3% in 191 patients who did not (P = .981). In conclusion, rituximab eliminates the increased risk for CNS disease in patients with ECFI. This retrospective analysis does not support intrathecal prophylaxis or radiotherapy to ECFI patients in complete remission/unconfirmed complete remission. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective study.

Elotuzumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (GMMG-HD6): results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to investigate the addition of the anti-SLAMF7 monoclonal antibody elotuzumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) in induction and consolidation therapy as well as to lenalidomide maintenance treatment in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. METHODS: GMMG-HD6 was a phase 3, randomised trial conducted at 43 main trial sites and 26 associated trial sites throughout Germany. Adult patients (aged 18-70 years) with previously untreated, symptomatic multiple myeloma, and a WHO performance status of 0-3, with 3 being allowed only if caused by myeloma disease and not by comorbid conditions, were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to four treatment groups. Induction therapy consisted of four 21-day cycles of RVd (lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-14; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11]; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 for cycles 1-2) or, RVd induction plus elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 for cycles 1-2, and on days 1 and 11 for cycles 3-4; E-RVd). Autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation was followed by two 21-day cycles of either RVd consolidation (lenalidomide 25 mg orally on days 1-14; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 subcutaneously on days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 20 mg orally on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) or elotuzumab plus RVd consolidation (with elotuzumab 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15) followed by maintenance with either lenalidomide (10 mg orally on days 1-28 for cycles 1-3; thereafter, up to 15 mg orally on days 1-28; RVd/R or E-RVd/R group) or lenalidomide plus elotuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 for cycles 1-6, and on day 1 for cycles 7-26; RVd/E-R or E-RVd/E-R group) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02495922, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 29, 2015, and on Sept 11, 2017, 564 patients were included in the trial. The modified ITT population comprised 559 (243 [43%] females and 316 [57%] males) patients and the safety population 555 patients. After a median follow-up of 49·8 months (IQR 43·7-55·5), there was no difference in progression-free survival between the four treatment groups (adjusted log-rank p value, p=0·86), and 3-year progression-free survival rates were 69% (95% CI 61-77), 69% (61-76), 66% (58-74), and 67% (59-75) for patients treated with RVd/R, RVd/E-R, E-RVd/R, and E-RVd/E-R, respectively. Infections (grade 3 or worse) were the most frequently observed adverse event in all treatment groups (28 [20%] of 137 for RVd/R; 32 [23%] of 138 for RVd/E-R; 35 [25%] of 138 for E-RVd/R; and 48 [34%] of 142 for E-RVd/E-R). Serious adverse events (grade 3 or worse) were observed in 68 (48%) of 142 participants in the E-RVd/E-R group, 53 (39%) of 137 in the RVd/R, 53 (38%) of 138 in the RVd/E-R, and 50 (36%) of 138 in the E-RVd/R (36%) group. There were nine treatment-related deaths during the study. Two deaths (one sepsis and one toxic colitis) in the RVd/R group were considered lenalidomide-related. One death in the RVd/E-R group due to meningoencephalitis was considered lenalidomide and elotuzumab-related. Four deaths (one pulmonary embolism, one septic shock, one atypical pneumonia, and one cardiovascular failure) in the E-RVd/R group and two deaths (one sepsis and one pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis) in the E-RVd/E-R group were considered related to lenalidomide or elotuzumab, or both. INTERPRETATION: Addition of elotuzumab to RVd induction or consolidation and lenalidomide maintenance in patients with transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma did not provide clinical benefit. Elotuzumab-containing therapies might be reserved for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene and Chugai.

Radiation and Dose-densification of R-CHOP in Aggressive B-cell Lymphoma With Intermediate Prognosis: The UNFOLDER Study.

UNFOLDER (Unfavorable Young Low-Risk Densification of R-Chemo Regimens) is an international phase-3 trial in patients 18-60 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and intermediate prognosis defined by age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) of 0 and bulky disease (≥7.5 cm) or aaIPI of 1. In a 2 × 2 factorial design patients were randomized to 6× R-CHOP-14 or 6× R-CHOP-21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prediso[lo]ne) and to consolidation radiotherapy to extralymphatic and bulky disease or observation. Response was assessed according to the standardized response criteria published in 1999, not including F-18 fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET). Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). A total of 695 of 700 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. Totally 467 patients qualified for radiotherapy of whom 305 patients were randomized to receive radiotherapy (R-CHOP-21: 155; R-CHOP-14: 150) and 162 to observation (R-CHOP-21: 81, R-CHOP-14: 81). Two hundred twenty-eight patients not qualifying for radiotherapy were randomized for R-CHOP-14 versus R-CHOP-21. After a median observation of 66 months 3-year EFS was superior in the radiotherapy-arm versus observation-arm (84% versus 68%; P = 0.0012), due to a lower rate of partial responses (PR) (2% versus 11%). PR often triggered additional treatment, mostly radiotherapy. No significant difference was observed in progression-free survival (PFS) (89% versus 81%; P = 0.22) and overall survival (OS) (93% versus 93%; P = 0.51). Comparing R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21 EFS, PFS and OS were not different. Patients randomized to radiotherapy had a superior EFS, largely due to a lower PR rate requiring less additional treatment (NCT00278408, EUDRACT 2005-005218-19).

FLOT Versus FLOT/Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab Perioperative Therapy of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Resectable Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the AIO EGA Study Group.

PURPOSE: High pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and comparably good survival data were seen in a phase II trial combining perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy with trastuzumab for resectable, esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). The current trial evaluates the addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab to FLOT as perioperative treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive resectable EGA. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized phase II/III trial, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, resectable EGA (≥ clinical tumor 2 or clinical nodal-positive) were assigned to four pre- and postoperative cycles of either FLOT alone (arm A) or combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, followed by nine cycles of trastuzumab/pertuzumab (arm B). The primary end point for the phase II part was the rate of pCR. RESULTS: The trial was closed prematurely, without transition into phase III, after results of the JACOB trial were reported. Eighty-one patients were randomly assigned (A: 41/B: 40) during the phase II part. The pCR rate was significantly improved with the trastuzumab/pertuzumab treatment (A: 12%/B: 35%; P = .02). Similarly, the rate of pathologic lymph node negativity was higher with trastuzumab/pertuzumab (A: 39%/B: 68%), whereas the R0 resection rate (A: 90%/B: 93%) and surgical morbidity (A: 43%/B: 44%) were comparable. Moreover, the inhouse mortality was equal in both arms (overall 2.5%). The median disease-free survival was 26 months in arm A and not yet reached in arm B (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .14). After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median overall survival was not yet reached (hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .24). Disease-free survival and overall survival rates at 24 months were 54% (95% CI, 38 to 71) and 77% (95% CI, 63 to 90) in arm A and 70% (95% CI, 55 to 85) and 84% (95% CI, 72 to 96) in arm B, respectively. More ≥ grade 3 adverse events were reported with trastuzumab/pertuzumab, especially diarrhea (A: 5%/B: 41%) and leukopenia (A: 13%/B: 23%). CONCLUSION: The addition of trastuzumab/pertuzumab to perioperative FLOT significantly improved pCR and nodal negativity rates at the price of higher rates of diarrhea and leukopenia.

Subcutaneous injection of trastuzumab into the thigh versus abdominal wall in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: Pharmacokinetic, safety and patients' preference - Substudy of the randomised phase III GAIN-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab given intravenously in combination with chemotherapy is standard of care for patients with early HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). Different randomised studies have shown equivalent efficacy of a subcutaneous injection into the thigh compared to the intravenous formulation. Other body regions for injection have not been investigated but might be more convenient for patients. METHODS: After surgery, patients were randomised to receive either subcutaneous trastuzumab into the thigh or into the abdominal wall (AW). Patient preferences were evaluated using validated questionnaires (PINT). Primary objectives of this multicentre, non-blinded, randomised substudy of the GAIN-2 study were to investigate pharmacokinetics of the injection into the thigh versus AW and to determine patients' preferences of either administration site versus the previously received intravenous application. RESULTS: 226 patients were randomised and 219 patients (thigh: N = 110; AW: N = 109) formed the modified intent-to-treat (mITT). Overall, 83.5% (out of N = 182 with information about patients' preference) preferred subcutaneous over previous intravenous application or had no preference. Preference was similar between both administration sites (thigh: 80.6%; AW: 86.5; p = 0.322). Pharmacokinetic analysis included 30 patients. Geometric means of Cmax and AUC0-21d were higher in thigh than in AW group (geometric mean ratio with body weight adjustment: Cmax: 1.291, 90%-CI 1.052-1.584; AUC0-21d: 1.291, 90%-CI 1.026-1.626). Safety profile was in line with previous reports of subcutaneous trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous trastuzumab into the thigh showed an approximately 30% higher bioavailability. Injections were well tolerated and preferred over intravenous administration. The subcutaneous injection into the thigh should remain the standard of care.

The feasibility of triple-drug chemotherapy combination in older adult patients with oesophagogastric cancer: a randomised trial of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (FLOT65+).

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the feasibility and tolerability of triple- versus double-drug chemotherapy in elderly patients with oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic oesophagogastric cancer were stratified and randomised to infusional 5-FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin without (FLO) or with docetaxel 50 mg/m(2) (FLOT) every 2 weeks. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00737373. FINDINGS: One hundred and forty three (FLO, 71; FLOT, 72) patients with a median age of 70 years were enrolled. The triple combination was associated with more treatment-related National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) grade 3/4 adverse events (FLOT, 81.9%; FLO, 38.6%; P<.001) and more patients experiencing a ≥10-points deterioration of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QoL) global health status scores (FLOT, 47.5%; FLO 20.5%; p=.011). The triple combination was associated with more alopecia (P<.001), neutropenia (P<.001), leukopenia (P<.001), diarrhoea (P=.006) and nausea (P=.029).). No differences were observed in treatment duration and discontinuation due to toxicity, cumulative doses or toxic deaths between arms. The triple combination improved response rates and progression-free survival in the locally advanced subgroup and in the subgroup of patients aged between 65 and 70 years but not in the metastatic group or in patients aged 70 years and older. INTERPRETATION: The triple-drug chemotherapy was feasible in elderly patients with oesophagogastric cancer. However, toxicity was significantly increased and QoL deteriorated in a relevant proportion of patients. FUNDING: The study was partially funded by Sanofi-Aventis.

Early molecular response to posttransplantation imatinib determines outcome in MRD+ Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL).

In adult Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL), minimal residual disease (MRD) after stem cell transplantation (SCT) is associated with a relapse probability exceeding 90%. Starting imatinib in the setting of MRD may decrease this high relapse rate. In this prospective multicenter study, 27 Ph+ ALL patients received imatinib upon detection of MRD after SCT. Bcr-abl transcripts became undetectable in 14 (52%) of 27 patients, after a median of 1.5 months (0.9-3.7 months) ((early)CR(mol)). All patients who achieved an (early)CR(mol) remained in remission for the duration of imatinib treatment; 3 patients relapsed after imatinib was discontinued. Failure to achieve polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negativity shortly after starting imatinib predicted relapse, which occurred in 12 (92%) of 13 patients after a median of 3 months. Disease-free survival (DFS) in (early)CR(mol) patients is 91% +/- 9% and 54% +/- 21% after 12 and 24 months, respectively, compared with 8% +/- 7% after 12 months in patients remaining MRD+ (P < .001). In conclusion, approximately half of patients with Ph+ ALL receiving imatinib for MRD positivity after SCT experience prolonged DFS, which can be anticipated by the rapid achievement of a molecular complete remission (CR). Continued detection of bcr-abl transcripts after 2 to 3 months on imatinib identifies patients who will ultimately experience relapse and in whom additional or alternative antileukemic treatment should be initiated.