Oral THC:CBD cannabis extract for refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial aimed to evaluate an oral THC:CBD (tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) cannabis extract for prevention of refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Here we report the phase II component results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients experienced CINV during moderate-to-high emetogenic intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Study treatment consisted of one cycle of 1-4 self-titrated capsules of oral THC 2.5 mg/CBD 2.5 mg (TN-TC11M) three times daily, from days -1 to 5, and 1 cycle of matching placebo in a crossover design, then blinded patient preference for a third cycle. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with complete response during 0-120 h from chemotherapy. A total of 80 participants provided 80% power to detect a 20% absolute improvement with a two-sided P value of 0.1. RESULTS: A total of 81 participants were randomised; 72 completing two cycles were included in the efficacy analyses and 78 not withdrawing consent were included in safety analyses. Median age was 55 years (range 29-80 years); 78% were female. Complete response was improved with THC:CBD from 14% to 25% (relative risk 1.77, 90% confidence interval 1.12-2.79, P = 0.041), with similar effects on absence of emesis, use of rescue medications, absence of significant nausea, and summary scores for the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Thirty-one percent experienced moderate or severe cannabinoid-related adverse events such as sedation, dizziness, or disorientation, but 83% of participants preferred cannabis to placebo. No serious adverse events were attributed to THC:CBD. CONCLUSION: The addition of oral THC:CBD to standard antiemetics was associated with less nausea and vomiting but additional side-effects. Most participants preferred THC:CBD to placebo. Based on these promising results, we plan to recruit an additional 170 participants to complete accrual for the definitive, phase III, parallel group analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001036404; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370473&isReview=true.

Patients' preferences for adjuvant sorafenib after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial: what makes it worthwhile?

Background: We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for 1 year, or for 3 years after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial. Methods: SORCE participants from all sites in Australia and New Zealand, and selected sites in the UK, completed a validated preferences questionnaire at months 0, 3, 15, and 42 to elicit the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for 1 year (versus observation), or for 3 years (versus 1 year). The questionnaires used reference survival times of 5 and 15 years; and reference survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. Results: The 233 participants had a median age of 57 years (range 29-78) and 71% were male. For 1 year of sorafenib versus no adjuvant therapy, the median benefits in survival times judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra 9 months beyond 5 years and an extra 1 year beyond 15 years; the median benefit in survival rates were an extra 4% beyond 65% and an extra 3% beyond 85% at 5 years. For 3 years of sorafenib versus 1 year of sorafenib, the median benefit in survival time judged sufficient to warrant extended treatment was an extra 1 year beyond both 5 and 15 years. Participants randomly allocated to treatment with sorafenib judged larger benefits necessary than those allocated to placebo. Participants' preferences were not associated with their baseline characteristics or the interval from randomisation. Conclusion: Most participants judged an extra year of survival necessary to warrant 1 year of adjuvant sorafenib worthwhile, and an additional year of survival to warrant extending the duration of sorafenib from 1 to 3 years. Patients' preferences are important in shared decision making. SORCE trial clinical trials number: NCT00492258.

A phase II study of fenretinide in patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer: a trial of the Cancer Therapeutics Research Group.

PURPOSE: Fenretinide is a synthetic retinoid with activity in prostate cancer and other cell lines. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of fenretinide in chemotherapy-naïve men with hormone refractory prostate cancer. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included hormone refractory prostate cancer with a rising PSA at least 6 weeks after peripheral anti-androgen withdrawal, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, and no prior chemotherapy. Fenretinide was administered orally at 900 mg m(-2) twice daily for 7 of every 21 days. PSA was measured before each cycle. The primary endpoint was a > or =50% reduction in PSA maintained for at least 3 weeks; secondary endpoints included duration of PSA response, time to treatment failure (TTF: treatment stopped for progression or toxicity) and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: Twenty seven pts were recruited from 7 centres over 27 months. Median age was 74 (range 49-86), median baseline PSA was 129 (range 19-1,000), and 70% had a PS of 0. The median number of cycles received was 2 (range 0-11) and 20 pts completed at least 1 cycle. One pt (4%) achieved a 50% reduction in PSA lasting 39 days and 15 pts (56%) had not progressed within 6 weeks of starting fenretinide. The median TTF was 54 days (IQR 19-73): 22 (81%) failed with tumour progression, 3 (11%) failed with toxicity and 2 (7%) never commenced the drug. Grade 3 rash occurred in 1 patient, all other AE were grade 1 or 2. The most common AE were nausea (40%), hot flushes (36%), constipation (32%) and nyctalopia (32%). CONCLUSION: High-dose fenretinide had limited anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced hormone refractory prostate cancer: further evaluation in this setting is not warranted.

Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: what makes AC and CMF worthwhile now?

BACKGROUND: Studies of women who had adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer 10-20 years ago showed that many judged small benefits sufficient to make it worthwhile. Indications, regimens and supportive care have changed. We sought the preferences of contemporary women who received similar chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven consecutive consenting women who completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer 3-34 months previously were interviewed. Preferences were elicited with a structured, scripted interview using the trade-off method. Women were presented with four hypothetical scenarios based on known life expectancies (5 and 15 years) and survival rates (65% and 85% at 5 years) without adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Improvements of an additional year in life expectancy or 3% in survival rates were judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 68-84% of women. Half the women judged 1 day or 0.1% sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. Recollections of better well-being during adjuvant chemotherapy, having dependants and having a friend or relative who died from cancer were independently associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Preferences were highly variable, but the benefits judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile were even smaller than those found in previous studies. Preferences were influenced by factors other than direct benefits and harms of chemotherapy.