Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene variants for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity: FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity. METHODS: Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC). RESULTS: Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants. CONCLUSIONS: FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity.

Role of chemotherapy in patients with nasopharynx carcinoma treated with radiotherapy (MAC-NPC): an updated individual patient data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The meta-analysis of chemotherapy for nasopharynx carcinoma (MAC-NPC) collaborative group previously showed that the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to concomitant chemoradiotherapy had the highest survival benefit of the studied treatment regimens in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Due to the publication of new trials on induction chemotherapy, we updated the network meta-analysis. METHODS: For this individual patient data network meta-analysis, trials of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma that completed accrual before Dec 31, 2016, were identified and updated individual patient data were obtained. Both general databases (eg, PubMed and Web of Science) and Chinese medical literature databases were searched. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. A frequentist network meta-analysis approach with a two-step random effect stratified by trial based on hazard ratio Peto estimator was used. Global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency, and p score to rank treatments, with higher scores indicating higher benefit therapies. Treatments were grouped into the following categories: radiotherapy alone, induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016042524. FINDINGS: The network comprised 28 trials and included 8214 patients (6133 [74·7%] were men, 2073 [25·2%] were women, and eight [0·1%] had missing data) enrolled between Jan 1, 1988, and Dec 31, 2016. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·2-13·3). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (p=0·18), and inconsistency was borderline (p=0·10). The three treatments with the highest benefit for overall survival were induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio 0·75; 95% CI 0·59-0·96; p score 92%), induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (0·81; 0·69-0·95; p score 87%), and chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (0·88; 0·75-1·04; p score 72%), compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (p score 46%). INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of new trials modified the conclusion of the previous network meta-analysis. In this updated network meta-analysis, the addition of either induction chemotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival over chemoradiotherapy alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. METHODS: We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). FINDINGS: 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. FUNDINGS: French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.

Predictive classifier for intensive treatment of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of intensive treatment for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) depends on the proportion of patients' overall event risk attributable to cancer. METHODS: This study analyzed 22,339 patients with LAHNC treated in 81 randomized trials testing altered fractionation (AFX; Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH] data set) or chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] data set). Generalized competing event regression was applied to the control arms in MARCH, and patients were stratified by tertile according to the ω score, which quantified the relative hazard for cancer versus competing events. The classifier was externally validated on the MACH-NC data set. The study tested for interactions between the ω score and treatment effects on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Factors associated with a higher ω score were a younger age, a better performance status, an oral cavity site, higher T and N categories, and a p16-negative/unknown status. The effect of AFX on OS was greater in patients with high ω scores (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P for interaction = .086). The effect of chemotherapy on OS was significantly greater in patients with high ω scores (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08; P for interaction = .011). CONCLUSIONS: LAHNC patients with a higher risk of cancer progression relative to competing mortality, as reflected by a higher ω score, selectively benefit from more intensive treatment.

Postoperative hepatic arterial chemotherapy in high-risk patients as adjuvant treatment after resection of colorectal liver metastases - a randomized phase II/III trial - PACHA-01 (NCT02494973).

BACKGROUND: After curative-intent surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), liver recurrence occurs in more than 60% of patients, despite the administration of perioperative or adjuvant chemotherapy. This risk is even higher after resection of more than three CRLM. As CRLM are mostly supplied by arterial blood flow, hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapeutic agents after resection of CRLM is an attractive approach. Oxaliplatin-based HAI chemotherapy, in association with systemic fluoropyrimidines, has been shown to be safe and highly active in patients with CRLM. In a retrospective series of 98 patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence (≥4 resected CRLM), adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin combined with systemic chemotherapy was feasible and significantly improved disease-free survival compared to adjuvant, 'modern' systemic chemotherapy alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is designed as a multicentre, randomized, phase II/III trial. The first step is a non-comparative randomized phase II trial (power, 95%; one-sided alpha risk, 10%). Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant systemic FOLFOX (control arm) or adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic LV5FU2 (experimental arm). A total 114 patients will need to be included. The main objective of this trial is to evaluate the potential survival benefit of adjuvant HAI with oxaliplatin after resection of at least 4 CRLM (primary endpoint: 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival rate). We also aim to assess the feasibility of delivering at least 4 cycles of HAI (or i.v.) oxaliplatin after surgical treatment of at least 4 CRLM, the toxicity (NCI-CTC v4.0) of adjuvant HAI plus systemic chemotherapy, including HAI catheter-related complications, compared to systemic chemotherapy alone, and the efficacy of adjuvant HAI on hepatic and extra-hepatic recurrence-free (survival and overall survival). DISCUSSION: If 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival is greater than 50% in the experimental arm, the study will be pursued in phase III, for which the primary endpoint will be 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Patients randomized in the phase II will be included in the phase III, with an additional number of 106 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02494973 . Trial registration date: July 10, 2015.

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. METHODS: For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS: Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8). INTERPRETATION: This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

ERCC1 isoform expression and DNA repair in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) protein is a potential prognostic biomarker of the efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although several ongoing trials are evaluating the level of expression of ERCC1, no consensus has been reached regarding a method for evaluation. METHODS: We used the 8F1 antibody to measure the level of expression of ERCC1 protein by means of immunohistochemical analysis in a validation set of samples obtained from 494 patients in two independent phase 3 trials (the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9633 trial from the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation Biology project). We compared the results of repeated staining of the entire original set of samples obtained from 589 patients in the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Biology study, which had led to the initial correlation between the absence of ERCC1 expression and platinum response, with our previous results in the same tumors. We mapped the epitope recognized by 16 commercially available ERCC1 antibodies and investigated the capacity of the different ERCC1 isoforms to repair platinum-induced DNA damage. RESULTS: We were unable to validate the predictive effect of immunostaining for ERCC1 protein. The discordance in the results of staining for ERCC1 suggested a change in the performance of the 8F1 antibody since 2006. We found that none of the 16 antibodies could distinguish among the four ERCC1 protein isoforms, whereas only one isoform produced a protein that had full capacities for nucleotide excision repair and cisplatin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical analysis with the use of currently available ERCC1 antibodies did not specifically detect the unique functional ERCC1 isoform. As a result, its usefulness in guiding therapeutic decision making is limited. (Funded by Eli Lilly and others.).

Joint model for left-censored longitudinal data, recurrent events and terminal event: Predictive abilities of tumor burden for cancer evolution with application to the FFCD 2000-05 trial.

In oncology, the international WHO and RECIST criteria have allowed the standardization of tumor response evaluation in order to identify the time of disease progression. These semi-quantitative measurements are often used as endpoints in phase II and phase III trials to study the efficacy of new therapies. However, through categorization of the continuous tumor size, information can be lost and they can be challenged by recently developed methods of modeling biomarkers in a longitudinal way. Thus, it is of interest to compare the predictive ability of cancer progressions based on categorical criteria and quantitative measures of tumor size (left-censored due to detection limit problems) and/or appearance of new lesions on overall survival. We propose a joint model for a simultaneous analysis of three types of data: a longitudinal marker, recurrent events, and a terminal event. The model allows to determine in a randomized clinical trial on which particular component treatment acts mostly. A simulation study is performed and shows that the proposed trivariate model is appropriate for practical use. We propose statistical tools that evaluate predictive accuracy for joint models to compare our model to models based on categorical criteria and their components. We apply the model to a randomized phase III clinical trial of metastatic colorectal cancer, conducted by the Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD 2000-05 trial), which assigned 410 patients to two therapeutic strategies with multiple successive chemotherapy regimens.

Bias and precision of methods for estimating the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The difference in restricted mean survival time ([Formula: see text]), the area between two survival curves up to time horizon [Formula: see text], is often used in cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. A challenge in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses is to account for the trial effect. We aimed at comparing different methods to estimate the [Formula: see text] from an IPD meta-analysis. METHODS: We compared four methods: the area between Kaplan-Meier curves (experimental vs. control arm) ignoring the trial effect (Naïve Kaplan-Meier); the area between Peto curves computed at quintiles of event times (Peto-quintile); the weighted average of the areas between either trial-specific Kaplan-Meier curves (Pooled Kaplan-Meier) or trial-specific exponential curves (Pooled Exponential). In a simulation study, we varied the between-trial heterogeneity for the baseline hazard and for the treatment effect (possibly correlated), the overall treatment effect, the time horizon [Formula: see text], the number of trials and of patients, the use of fixed or DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, and the proportionality of hazards. We compared the methods in terms of bias, empirical and average standard errors. We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) and its updated version MAC-NPC2 for illustration that included respectively 1,975 and 5,028 patients in 11 and 23 comparisons. RESULTS: The Naïve Kaplan-Meier method was unbiased, whereas the Pooled Exponential and, to a much lesser extent, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier methods showed a bias with non-proportional hazards. The Peto-quintile method underestimated the [Formula: see text], except with non-proportional hazards at [Formula: see text]= 5 years. In the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, all methods except the Pooled Kaplan-Meier and the Pooled Exponential with DerSimonian-Laird random effects underestimated the standard error of the [Formula: see text]. Overall, the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects formed the best compromise in terms of bias and variance. The [Formula: see text] estimated with the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method was 0.49 years (95% CI: [-0.06;1.03], p = 0.08) when comparing radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs. radiotherapy alone in the MAC-NPC and 0.59 years (95% CI: [0.34;0.84], p < 0.0001) in the MAC-NPC2. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the Pooled Kaplan-Meier method with DerSimonian-Laird random effects to estimate the difference in restricted mean survival time from an individual-patient data meta-analysis.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Postoperative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in the treatment of patients with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was not clear. A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These results were first published in Lung Cancer in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of PORT on survival and recurrence in patients with completely resected NSCLC. To investigate whether predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from PORT. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1965 to 8 July 2016) with information from trial registers, handsearching of relevant meeting proceedings and discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy, provided they randomised participants with NSCLC using a method that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. We sought data on all participants from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival and date of last follow-up, as well as details on treatment allocation, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, nodal status and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information on all randomised participants, including those excluded from investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials evaluating surgery versus surgery plus radiotherapy. Individual participant data were available for 11 of these trials, and our analyses are based on 2343 participants (1511 deaths). Results show a significant adverse effect of PORT on survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.18, or an 18% relative increase in risk of death. This is equivalent to an absolute detriment of 5% at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 9%), reducing overall survival from 58% to 53%. Subgroup analyses showed no differences in effects of PORT by any participant subgroup covariate.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of PORT on quality of life and adverse events. Investigators did not routinely collect quality of life information during these trials, and it was unlikely that any benefit of PORT would offset the observed survival disadvantage. We considered risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 11 trials and 2343 participants show that PORT is detrimental to those with completely resected non-small cell lung cancer and should not be used in the routine treatment of such patients. Results of ongoing RCTs will clarify the effects of modern radiotherapy in patients with N2 tumours.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an update of the MAC-NPC meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A previous individual patient data meta-analysis by the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Nasopharynx Carcinoma (MAC-NPC) collaborative group to assess the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy showed that it improves overall survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. This benefit was restricted to patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to update the meta-analysis, include recent trials, and to analyse separately the benefit of concomitant plus adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Trials meta-register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and meeting proceedings to identify published or unpublished randomised trials assessing radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma and obtained updated data for previously analysed studies. The primary endpoint of interest was overall survival. All trial results were combined and analysed using a fixed-effects model. The statistical analysis plan was pre-specified in a protocol. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. FINDINGS: We analysed data from 19 trials and 4806 patients. Median follow-up was 7·7 years (IQR 6·2-11·9). We found that the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·73-0·86, p<0·0001; absolute benefit at 5 years 6·3%, 95% CI 3·5-9·1). The interaction between treatment effect (benefit of chemotherapy) on overall survival and the timing of chemotherapy was significant (p=0·01) in favour of concomitant plus adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0·65, 0·56-0·76) and concomitant without adjuvant chemotherapy (0·80, 0·70-0·93) but not adjuvant chemotherapy alone (0·87, 0·68-1·12) or induction chemotherapy alone (0·96, 0·80-1·16). The benefit of the addition of chemotherapy was consistent for all endpoints analysed (all p<0·0001): progression-free survival (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·69-0·81), locoregional control (0·73, 0·64-0·83), distant control (0·67, 0·59-0·75), and cancer mortality (0·76, 0·69-0·84). INTERPRETATION: Our results confirm that the addition of concomitant chemotherapy to radiotherapy significantly improves survival in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis that examines the effect of concomitant chemotherapy with and without adjuvant chemotherapy as distinct groups. Further studies on the specific benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy after concomitant chemoradiotherapy are needed. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health (Programme d'actions intégrées de recherche VADS), Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of phase I/II targeted therapy combined with radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: quality of report, toxicity, and survival.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of severe adverse events (SAE) reported in early trials combining molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) with radiotherapy (RT), and to compare them to standard therapy. A summary data meta-analysis was performed and compared to the historical standard. Inclusion criteria were phase I and/or II trials published between 2000 and 2011, with glioblastoma multiforme patients treated with RT and MTT. Pooled incidence rates (IR) of SAE were estimated as well as the pooled median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Nineteen prospective trials (9 phase I, 1 phase I/II and 9 phase II) out of 29 initially selected were included (n = 755 patients). The exact number of patients who had experienced SAE was mentioned in 37 % of the trials, concerning only 17 % of the patients. Information such as the period during which adverse events were monitored, the planned treatment duration, and late toxicity were not reported in the trials. The pooled IR of overall SAE was 131.2 (95 % CI 88.8-193.7) per 1000 person-months compared to 74.7 (63.6-87.8) for standard therapy (p < 0.01). Significant differences were observed for gastrointestinal events (p = 0.05) and treatment-related deaths (p = 0.02), in favour of standard therapy. No significant difference was observed in PFS and OS. Reporting a summary of toxicity data in early clinical trials should be stringently standardized. The use of MTT with RT compared to standard therapy increased SAE while yielded comparable survival in glioblastoma multiforme patients.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. METHODS: In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52-74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43-65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1-7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7-6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1-13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6-16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in chemotherapy and radiotherapy trials in operable and locally advanced lung cancer: a re-analysis of meta-analyses of individual patients' data.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard endpoint in clinical trials of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for lung cancer is overall survival. Although reliable and simple to measure, this endpoint takes years to observe. Surrogate endpoints that would enable earlier assessments of treatment effects would be useful. We assessed the correlations between potential surrogate endpoints and overall survival at individual and trial levels. METHODS: We analysed individual patients' data from 15,071 patients involved in 60 randomised clinical trials that were assessed in six meta-analyses. Two meta-analyses were of adjuvant chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer, three were of sequential or concurrent chemotherapy, and one was of modified radiotherapy in locally advanced lung cancer. We investigated disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from randomisation to local or distant relapse or death, and locoregional control, defined as the time to the first local event, as potential surrogate endpoints. At the individual level we calculated the squared correlations between distributions of these three endpoints and overall survival, and at the trial level we calculated the squared correlation between treatment effects for endpoints. FINDINGS: In trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, correlations between DFS and overall survival were very good at the individual level (ρ(2)=0.83, 95% CI 0.83-0.83 in trials without radiotherapy, and 0.87, 0.87-0.87 in trials with radiotherapy) and excellent at trial level (R(2)=0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.95 in trials without radiotherapy and 0.99, 0.98-1.00 in trials with radiotherapy). In studies of locally advanced disease, correlations between PFS and overall survival were very good at the individual level (ρ(2) range 0.77-0.85, dependent on the regimen being assessed) and trial level (R(2) range 0.89-0.97). In studies with data on locoregional control, individual-level correlations were good (ρ(2)=0.71, 95% CI 0.71-0.71 for concurrent chemotherapy and ρ(2)=0.61, 0.61-0.61 for modified vs standard radiotherapy) and trial-level correlations very good (R(2)=0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.92 for concurrent chemotherapy and R(2)=0.95, 0.91-0.98 for modified vs standard radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: We found a high level of evidence that DFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival in studies of adjuvant chemotherapy involving patients with non-small-cell lung cancers, and PFS in those of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced lung cancers. Extrapolation to targeted agents, however, is not automatically warranted. FUNDING: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, British Medical Research Council, Sanofi-Aventis.

Season of radiotherapy and outcomes of head & neck cancer patients in the MACH-NC & MARCH meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: A single institution retrospective study suggested that head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) during "dark" season (fall/winter) may have better outcomes than those treated during "light" season (spring/summer), possibly secondary to seasonal variations in cell cycle progression. We investigated the impact of season of RT in two large, multi-institutional, prospective datasets of randomized trials. METHODS: Individual patient data from the MACH-NC and MARCH meta-analyses were analyzed. Dark season was defined as mid-radiotherapy date during fall or winter and light the reverse, using equinoxes to separate the two periods. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoint was locoregional failure (LRF). The effect of season was estimated with a Cox model stratified by trial and adjusted on sex, tumor site, stage, and treatment. Planned sensitivity analyses were performed on patients treated around solstices, who received "complete radiotherapy", patients treated with concomitant radio-chemotherapy and on trials performed in Northern countries. RESULTS: 11320 patients from 33 trials of MARCH and 6276 patients from 29 trials of MACH-NC were included. RT during dark season had no benefit on PFS in the MARCH (hazard ratio[HR]: 1.01 [95%CI 0.97;1.05],p=0.72) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06],p=1.0. No difference in LRF was observed in the MARCH (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06,p=0.95) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:0.99 [95%CI 0.91; 1.07],p=0.77). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Season of RT had no impact on PFS or LRF in two large databases of HNSCC.

Standard versus fractionated high-dose cisplatin plus radiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: Results of the CisFRad (GORTEC 2015-02) randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy with high-dose cisplatin (HD-Cis: 100 mg/m2 q3w for three cycles) is the standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC). Cumulative delivered dose of cisplatin is prognostic of survival, even beyond 200 mg/m2 but high toxicity compromises its delivery. AIM: Cisplatin fractionation may allow, by decreasing the peak serum concentration, to decrease toxicity. To date, no direct comparison was done of HD-Cis versus fractionated high dose cisplatin (FHD-Cis). METHODS: This is a multi-institutional randomized phase II trial, stratified on postoperative or definitive chemoradiotherapy, comparing HD-Cis to FHD-Cis (25 mg/m2/d d1-4 q3w for 3 cycles) in patients with LA-HNSCC. The primary endpoint was the cumulative delivered cisplatin dose. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and April 2018, 124 patients were randomized. Median cisplatin cumulative delivered dose was 291 mg/m2 (IQR: 251;298) in the FHD-Cis arm and 274 mg/m2 (IQR: 198;295) in the HD-Cis arm (P = 0.054). The proportion of patients receiving a third cycle of cisplatin was higher, with a lower proportion of grade 3-4 acute AEs in the FHD-Cis arm compared to the HD-Cis arm: 81 % vs. 64 % (P = 0.04) and 10 % vs. 17 % (P = 0.002), respectively. With a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR: 41;55), locoregional failure rate, PFS and OS were similar between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Although the primary endpoint was not met, FHD-Cis allowed more cycles of cisplatin to be delivered with lower toxicity, when compared to SOC. FHD-Cis concurrently with RT is a treatment option which deserves further consideration.