Leptomeningeal metastasis from non-small cell lung cancer- a post-hoc analysis from four randomised clinical trials.

Background: Leptomeningeal metastasis (LMM) from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is often an underdiagnosed entity, has a dismal prognosis and has very limited data from low- and middle-income countries. Methods: A single-centre study, which included 1148 adult patients diagnosed as NSCLC, with Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status 0-2, as identified from data of four prospective randomised controlled trials. Two trials included patients who had epidermal growth factor sensitive mutations (CTRI/2015/08/006113 and CTRI/2016/08/007149) and the other two included squamous cell carcinoma (CTRI/2013/02/003422) and adenocarcinoma patients (CTRI/2014/08/00484). The key objectives were to estimate the incidence, risk factors, time to development and outcomes for LMM. Results: Out of 1148 patients, 36 patients (0.031%; 95%CI: 0.022-0.043) developed leptomeningeal metastasis. In these patients, median time to development of LM was 14.92 months (interquartile range: 7.7-21.84). Among the tested factors, the presence of brain metastasis was the only statistically significant risk factor associated with the development of LMM (p-value = 0.035). The median overall survival (OS) after the development of LM was 61 days (95%CI: 38.95-83.05). The median OS in driver mutated patients was 66 days (95% CI: 14.74-117.26) versus 51 days (95% CI: 14.5-87.5) (p-value = 0.201) in non-driver mutated patients. Only 6 (19.4%) out of 31 epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated patients received osimertinib. Patients treated with osimertinib had a median OS of 245 days (95% CI: 215.48-274.52) versus 52 days (95% CI: 22.62-81.38) for those without (p-value = 0.327). Conclusion: The incidence of LMM is low in the Indian population. In our study, there was no single factor which impacted survival in patients who developed LMM. This suggests that the overall prognosis is poor in patients with LMM where access to newer therapeutic modalities is limited.

RMAC study: A randomized study for evaluation of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgical resection in those who are ineligible for re-irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant re-chemoradiation after salvage surgery improves disease-free survival in recurrent head and neck cancer. However, most patients are ineligible for re-irradiation and are kept on observation. We investigated the efficacy of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) in this group of patients compared to observation. METHODS: This was a randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial. Adults with recurrent head and neck cancer, who had undergone salvage surgery, but were ineligible for adjuvant re-irradiation were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MAC arm or observation. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (at a dose of 15 mg per square meter of body surface area) and celecoxib (at a dose of 200 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was disease-free survival (DFS) while that of phase 3 was overall survival (OS). For phase 2, to detect an improvement in the hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 with MAC, with a type 1 error of 10% (1-sided), type 2 error of 30%, 105 patients were required. While for phase 3, with a target HR of 0.77, with a type 1 error of 5%, type 2 error of 20%, 318 patients were required. Here we report the results of phase 2 part of the study. RESULTS: At a median follow up of 30.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 25.3 to 35.1) the 1 year and 2-year DFS were 57.4% (95% CI, 42.8-69.5) and 37.6% (95% CI, 24.1-51) in MAC arm whereas the corresponding numbers were 62.3% (95% CI, 47.8 to 73.8) and 54.2%(95% CI, 39.8 to 66.5) in observation arm, respectively (hazard ratio for progression, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.47; P = 0.15). In the MAC arm, the 1 and 2 year OS was 78.7% (95% CI, 64.9 to 87.6) and 48% (95% CI, 34.1 to 62).The corresponding figures in the observation arm were 79.2% (95% CI, 65.7 to 87.9) and 65.5% (95% CI, 50.9 to 76.7) (hazard ratio for death, 1.7, 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.08; P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The adjuvant 6-month metronomic schedule was ineffective in improving outcomes in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgery who are ineligible for re-radiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI)- CTRI/2016/04/006872 [Registered on 26/4/2016].

Outcomes of non-metastatic triple negative breast cancers: Real-world data from a large Indian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Triple negative Breast tumor (TNBC) is an aggressive tumor with sparse data worldwide. METHODS: We analyzed non-metastatic TNBC from 2013 to 2019 for demographics, practice patterns, and survival by the Kaplan Meir method. Prognostic factors for OS and DFS were evaluated using Cox Proportional Hazard model estimator for univariate and multivariable analysis after checking for collinearity among the variables. RESULTS: There were 1297 patients with median age of 38 years; 41 (33.3%) among 123 tested were BRCA-positives. Among these 593 (45.7%) had stage III disease, 1279 (98.6%) were grade III, 165 (13.0%) had peri-nodal extension (PNE), 212 (16.0%) lympho-vascular invasion (LVI), and 21 (1.6%) were metaplastic; 1256 (96.8%) received chemotherapy including 820 (63.2%) neoadjuvant with 306 (40.0%) pCR. Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 155 (12.4%) including two deaths and 3 s-primaries. 1234 (95.2%) underwent surgery [722 (55.7%) breast conservations] and 1034 (79.7%) received radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 54 months, median disease-free (DFS) was 92.2 months and overall survival (OS) was not reached. 5-year estimated DFS and OS was 65.9% and 80.3%. There were 259 (20.0%) failures; predominantly distant (204, 15.7%) - lung (51%), liver (31.8%). In multivariate analysis presence of LVI (HR-2.00, p-0.003), PNE (HR-2.09 p-0.003), older age (HR-1.03, p-0.002) and stage III disease (HR-4.89, p-0.027), were associated with poor OS. CONCLUSION: Relatively large contemporary data of non-metastatic TNBC confirms aggressive biology and predominant advanced stage presentation which adversely affects outcomes. The data strongly indicate the unmet need for early detection to optimize care.

Safety and efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in recurrent/ progressive glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple low-cost biosimilars of bevacizumab are now available but their clinical efficacy has never been compared against the original (innovator) molecule in glioblastoma. The aim of the current analysis is to compare the overall survival (OS) in recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients between the biosimilar and innovator molecules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab from 1 July 2015 to 30 July 2019 were identified. These patients were either offered Bevacizumab innovator (Avastin, Roche) or biosimilar (BevaciRel: Reliance Life sciences or Bryxta: Zydus Oncosciences) depending upon the financial status and affordability of the patients. The primary endpoint of the study was OS, while progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: There were 82 patients, out of which 57 received innovator and 25 received biosimilar bevacizumab. At median follow-up of 26 months, the median PFS was 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08 to 5.25) and 3.3 months (95% CI 2.38 to 4.21) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.072). The hazard ratio (HR) for progression was 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.05; p-value = 0.075). At the time of data cut-off, the median OS was 5.53 (95% CI, 5.07 to 5.99) versus 7.33 months (95% CI, 5.63 to 9.03) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.51). The HR for death was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.67 to 2.17; p-value = 0.51). The adverse events and safety profiles were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In the recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients, both innovator and biosimilar bevacizumab seem to have similar safety and clinical efficacy.

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma: an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1-3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings. METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18-70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m2 methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6-12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615-0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7-12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616-0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01). INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible. FUNDING: Tata Memorial Center Research Administration Council. TRANSLATIONS: For the Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Oriya, Bengali, and Punjabi translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with temozolomide: an audit from a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: In our previous experience, a significant proportion of patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist monotherapy with adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2) had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is an audit comparing the multiple antiemetic therapies in the prevention of temozolomide-associated CINV. METHODS: This was a retrospective audit. Adult glioma patients treated with temozolomide at a dose of 150-200 mg/m2 between October 2017 and June 2018 were selected for this analysis. Three antiemetic prophylaxis were used in this time period: ondansetron (October 2017 to November 2017), ondansetron + domperidone (December 2017 to February 2018), and ondansetron + olanzapine (March 2018 to June 2018). The rates of nausea and vomiting were compared among the 3 cohorts using the chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction. A P value of less than .016 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were selected for this analysis. There were 91 patients in the ondansetron prophylaxis group (25.3%), 113 (31.4%) in the ondansetron plus domperidone group, and 156 (43.3%) in the ondansetron plus olanzapine group. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 25.0% (n = 90) and 7.2% (n = 26). Overall the rates of nausea (P = .052) and vomiting (P = .481) were similar in all 3 cohorts. However, the rates of grade 2 and above nausea (P = .012) and vomiting (P = .015) were significantly lower in the olanzapine group. CONCLUSION: The combination of ondansetron with olanzapine leads to a statistically significant decrease in the rate of moderate-to-severe emesis and nausea and needs to be explored in a prospective study.

Calculation of a clinical predictive factors identifying peritoneal disease on a staging laparoscopy in gastric cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Staging laparoscopy (SL) is the current standard staging workup for loco-advanced gastric cancers (GCs). Materials and Methods: We analyzed the data of all patients with loco-regionally advanced, nonmetastatic GCs, who underwent SL for the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the data of all patients with loco-regionally advanced, nonmetastatic GCs, who underwent SL for the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). RESULTS: Between December 2013 and October 2016, 363 patients underwent SL, of which 75 (20.7%) were found to have PC on SL. Age ≤40 years, CA 19-9 > upper limit of normal, and low serum albumin levels (≤3.5 g/dl) correlated significantly with the presence of PC on SL. There was a statistically significant difference in the median overall survival between patients with radiologically detected PC and SL detected PC (8.67 months vs. 15.3 months;P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: SL upstaged disease status in 20.7% of patients. Clinical factors, identified in this study, need further validation in larger prospective cohorts before being used in clinical practice. Patients with radiologically detected PC have lower survival as compared to those with PC on SL.

A randomized phase 3 trial comparing nimotuzumab plus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy versus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because the addition of nimotuzumab to chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer improved outcomes in a phase 2 study, the authors conducted a phase 3 study to confirm these findings. METHODS: This open-label, investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomized trial was conducted from 2012 to 2018. Adult patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who were fit for radical chemoradiation were randomized 1:1 to receive either radical radiotherapy (66-70 grays) with concurrent weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 ) (CRT) or the same schedule of CRT with weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg) (NCRT).The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), duration of locoregional control (LRC), and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis also was performed. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients were allocated equally to both treatment arms. The median follow-up was 39.13 months. The addition of nimotuzumab improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .004), LRC (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89; P = .006), and DFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = .008) and had a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08; P = .163). Grade 3 through 5 adverse events were similar between the 2 arms, except for a higher incidence of mucositis in the NCRT arm (66.7% vs 55.8%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to concurrent weekly CRT improves PFS, LRC, and DFS. This combination provides a novel alternative therapeutic option to a 3-weekly schedule of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are treated with radical-intent CRT.

Phase III Non-inferiority Study Evaluating Efficacy and Safety of Low Dose Gemcitabine Compared to Standard Dose Gemcitabine With Platinum in Advanced Squamous Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged infusion of low dose gemcitabine (PLDG) in combination with platinum has shown promising activity in terms of improved response rate and progression free survival (PFS); especially in squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Hence, we conducted a phase 3 randomized non-inferiority study with the primary objective of comparing the overall survival (OS) between PLDG and standard dose of gemcitabine with platinum. METHODOLOGY: Adult subjects (age ≥ 18 years), with stages IIIB-IV, NSCLC (squamous) and ECOG performance status of ≤ 2 were randomized 1:1 into either carboplatin with standard dose gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenous over 30 min, days 1 and 8) (STD-G arm) or carboplatin along with low dose gemcitabine (250 mg/m2 intravenous over 6 h, days 1 and 8) (LOW-G arm) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Tumor response was assessed by RECIST criteria version 1.1 every 2 cycles till 6th cycle and thereafter at 2 monthly intervals till progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival. 308 patients were randomized, 155 in STD-G arm and 153 in LOW-G arm, respectively. RESULTS: The median overall survival in STD-G arm was 6.8 months (95%CI 5.3-8.5) versus 8.4 months (95%CI 7-10.3) in the LOW-G arm (HR-0.890 (90%CI 0.725-1.092). The results with per protocol analysis were in line with these results. There was no statistical difference in progression free survival (HR-0.949; 90%CI 0.867-1.280) and adverse event rate between the 2 arms. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that PLDG is an alternative to the standard gemcitabine schedule in squamous NSCLC, and either of these can be selected subject to patient convenience.

Shadow study: randomized comparison of clinic with video follow-up in glioma undergoing adjuvant temozolomide therapy.

AIM: This study was designed with a primary objective to study the rate of agreement in treatment plan and decisions between video follow-up (VF) and conventional clinic follow-up (CF). PATIENTS & METHODS: Adult patients with intermediate- to high-grade glioma on adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) with facilities for live video call were invited to participate in the study. RESULTS: The concurrence in decision of administering TMZ between VF and CF was 100% (p < 0.00). The median cost incurred in VF was US$58.15 while that incurred in CF was US$131.23 (p < 0.00). CONCLUSION: VF can substitute CF during adjuvant TMZ administration (CTRI/2017/01/007626).

Once-a-Week Versus Once-Every-3-Weeks Cisplatin Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

Purpose Chemoradiation with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 given once every 3 weeks is the standard of care in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (LAHNSCC). Increasingly, low-dose once-a-week cisplatin is substituted because of perceived lower toxicity and convenience. However, there is no level 1 evidence of comparable efficacy to cisplatin once every 3 weeks. Patients and Methods In this phase III randomized trial, we assessed the noninferiority of cisplatin 30 mg/m2 given once a week compared with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 given once every 3 weeks, both administered concurrently with curative intent radiotherapy in patients with LAHNSCC. The primary end point was locoregional control (LRC); secondary end points included toxicity, compliance, response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results Between 2013 and 2017, we randomly assigned 300 patients, 150 to each arm. Two hundred seventy-nine patients (93%) received chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant setting. At a median follow-up of 22 months, the estimated cumulative 2-year LRC rate was 58.5% in the once-a-week arm and 73.1% in the once-every-3-weeks arm, leading to an absolute difference of 14.6% (95% CI, 5.7% to 23.5%); P = .014; hazard ratio (HR), 1.76 (95% CI, 1.11 to 2.79). Acute toxicities of grade 3 or higher occurred in 71.6% of patients in the once-a-week arm and in 84.6% of patients in the once-every-3-weeks arm ( P = .006). Estimated median progression-free survival in the once-a-week arm was 17.7 months (95% CI, 0.42 to 35.05 months) and in the once-every-3-weeks arm, 28.6 months (95% CI, 15.90 to 41.30 months); HR, 1.24 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.73); P = .21. Estimated median overall survival in the once-a-week arm was 39.5 months and was not reached in the once-every-3-weeks arm (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.65]; P = .48). Conclusion Once-every-3-weeks cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 resulted in superior LRC, albeit with more toxicity, than did once-a-week cisplatin at 30 mg/m2, and should remain the preferred chemoradiotherapy regimen for LAHNSCC in the adjuvant setting.