Assessing the efficacy and tolerability of PET-guided BrECADD versus eBEACOPP in advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HD21): a randomised, multicentre, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensified systemic chemotherapy has the highest primary cure rate for advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma but this comes with a cost of severe and potentially life long, persisting toxicities. With the new regimen of brentuximab vedotin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine, and dexamethasone (BrECADD), we aimed to improve the risk-to-benefit ratio of treatment of advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma guided by PET after two cycles. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, parallel, open-label, phase 3 trial was done in 233 trial sites across nine countries. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≤60 years) with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma (ie, Ann Arbor stage III/IV, stage II with B symptoms, and either one or both risk factors of large mediastinal mass and extranodal lesions). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to four or six cycles (21-day intervals) of escalated doses of etoposide (200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-3), doxorubicin (35 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and cyclophosphamide (1250 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1), and standard doses of bleomycin (10 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), vincristine (1·4 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8), procarbazine (100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-7), and prednisone (40 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; eBEACOPP) or BrECADD, guided by PET after two cycles. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Hierarchical coprimary objectives were to show (1) improved tolerability defined by treatment-related morbidity and (2) non-inferior efficacy defined by progression-free survival with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 6 percentage points of BrECADD compared with eBEACOPP. An additional test of superiority of progression-free survival was to be done if non-inferiority had been established. Analyses were done by intention to treat; the treatment-related morbidity assessment required documentation of at least one chemotherapy cycle. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02661503). FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2016, and Aug 27, 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 749 were randomly assigned to BrECADD and 751 to eBEACOPP. 1482 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median age of patients was 31 years (IQR 24-42). 838 (56%) of 1482 patients were male and 644 (44%) were female. Most patients were White (1352 [91%] of 1482). Treatment-related morbidity was significantly lower with BrECADD (312 [42%] of 738 patients) than with eBEACOPP (430 [59%] of 732 patients; relative risk 0·72 [95% CI 0·65-0·80]; p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 48 months, BrECADD improved progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (0·45-0·97; p=0·035); 4-year progression-free survival estimates were 94·3% (95% CI 92·6-96·1) for BrECADD and 90·9% (88·7-93·1) for eBEACOPP. 4-year overall survival rates were 98·6% (97·7-99·5) and 98·2% (97·2-99·3), respectively. INTERPRETATION: BrECADD guided by PET after two cycles is better tolerated and more effective than eBEACOPP in first-line treatment of adult patients with advanced-stage, classical Hodgkin lymphoma. FUNDING: Takeda Oncology.

Prognostic factors in nonsmall cell lung cancer: insights from the German CRISP registry.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding prognosis, especially long-term outcome, in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crucial to inform patients, guide treatment and plan supportive and palliative care. METHODS: Prognostic factors influencing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 2082 patients with wild-type (WT)-NSCLC (629 M1a, 249 M1b, 1204 M1c) are reported. Patients were included in the prospective German CRISP registry recruiting in >150 centres. Analysis for pre-therapeutic factors was based on results from Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Current M-descriptors of the Union for International Cancer Control-8 staging system were validated: M1a and M1b patients had significantly longer median time to events compared to M1c (OS/PFS 16.4/7.2 months, 17.8/6.7 months and 10.9/5.4 months, respectively). OS and PFS were influenced by number and location of metastatic organ systems. M1c and four or more metastatic organs involved had shorter OS and PFS than M1c with one to three organs (OS hazard ratio (HR) 1.69, p<0.001; PFS HR 1.81, p<0.001). M1b-liver metastases had shorter OS/PFS than M1b involving other organs (OS HR 2.70, p=0.006; PFS HR 2.48, p=0.007). Based on number of involved organs (orgsys) and liver metastases, two risk groups (low-risk: M1a, M1b-non-liver, M1c-1-3-orgsys-non-liver; high-risk: M1c-liver, M1b-liver, M1c-4+-orgsys) with significantly different prognoses could be amalgamated (median OS/PFS 14.3/6.5 months and 7.7/4.1 months, respectively). Other favourable factors were female gender and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group stage 0, with age showing no impact. Those with T1- or N0-status were associated with longer OS than T2-4 or N2-3. CONCLUSION: In this large observational dataset, we further defined factors for outcome in WT-NSCLC, including increased number of involved metastatic organ systems and liver metastases, as those with overall poorer prognosis and reduced survival chance.

A German-Wide Systematic Study on Mobilization and Collection of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Poor Mobilizer Patients with Multiple Myeloma prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation.

Introduction: In patients with a clinical indication for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT), sufficient mobilization of CD34+ precursor cells into peripheral blood is essential to ensure adequate hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) collection prior to intensive therapy. However, with standard granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)-based mobilization schemes, an important minority of patients fail to mobilize sufficient (e.g., >10/µL) CD34+ cell counts into the peripheral blood and are considered as poor mobilizers (PM). Because failure to achieve sufficient CD34+ cell mobilization can negatively affect important clinical treatment endpoints, the use of plerixafor (PLX) was approved to increase CD34+ mobilization in PM patients. Methods: The German non-interventional, multicenter, open-label, prospective OPTIMOB study evaluated HSC mobilization strategies prior to planned ASCT in adult patients with hematologic malignancies (lymphomas or multiple myeloma [MM]) focusing on PM patients. PM patients were defined as follows: (1) never achieving ≥20 CD34+ cells/µL before 1st apheresis, (2) receiving PLX at any timepoint of mobilization, (3) their initially planned stem cell yield had to be reduced, or (4) they had not received apheresis due to low CD34+ count in peripheral blood. Results: 168 of 475 MM patients (35%) participating in the OPTIMOB study were classified as PM, and 155 of them (92%) received PLX (PM+PLX) during the study. PM patients were 40-78 years old, slightly more often male (n = 97, 58%), mostly newly diagnosed (n = 146, 87%) and received highly individualized previous treatments. Ninety-four of the PMs underwent chemotherapy mobilization (65%), and 51 patients (35%) received steady-state mobilization with G-CSF only during 1st mobilization attempt. 92% of the total PM population (n = 155) underwent apheresis, 78% of them (n = 117) achieved >2.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight on the 1st day of apheresis. PM+PLX had a higher median total collection result than those PM patients without PLX support (7.2 vs. 5.7 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg body weight). In total, ASCT was performed in 136 PM+PLX (88%) versus 8 PM-PLX patients (62%). Conclusion: The OPTIMOB study showed that a considerable proportion of adult MM patients in Germany are PMs. Even though most of PMs were supported with PLX in the OPTIMOB study, PM-PLX also successfully mobilized HSCs, allowing ASCT in majority of all PMs. However, further analyses are required for treatment optimization in PMs.

Mobilization and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Poor Mobilizing Patients with Lymphoma: Final Results of the German OPTIMOB Study.

Introduction: Successful mobilization and collection of peripheral hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are necessary for lymphoma patients eligible for myeloablative chemotherapy with subsequent autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Albeit G-CSF alone or combined with chemotherapy is well-established methods for HSC mobilization, up to 40% of the patients fail to mobilize (poor mobilizer, PM). Plerixafor (PLX) is commonly used in PM patients resulting in increased migration of HSCs into peripheral blood and thus improves the collection outcome. Methods: The prospective, multicenter, open-label, non-interventional OPTIMOB study assessed mobilization and collection parameter of patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma to get deep insights in the treatment of those patients in clinical routine focusing on PM patients. PM was defined as follows: (1) no achievement of ≥20 CD34+ progenitor cells/µL before first apheresis, (2) PLX administration at any time point during the observational period, (3) reduction of the initially planned CD34+ progenitor cell yield as necessity due to failed mobilization or HSC collection, and (4) no performance of apheresis due to low CD34+ progenitor level. Primary objective of the study was to assess mobilization success by the proportion of PM patients achieving >2 × 106 CD34+ progenitor cells/kg body weight on the first day of apheresis. Here, the data of the lymphoma cohort are presented. Results: Out of 238 patients with lymphoma documented in the study, 32% were classified as PM. 87% of them received PLX. Demographic data revealed no obvious differences between PM and good mobilizing (GM) patients. All patients were treated highly individualized prior to mobilization. Majority of all PM patients were able to undergo apheresis (95%) and reached their individual requested CD34+ progenitor cell target (72%). 57% of the PM patients achieved >2.0 × 106 CD34+ progenitor cells/kg body weight on day 1 of apheresis and nearby 70% of them underwent ASCT. Median time to engraftment was similar in PM and GM patients of the lymphoma cohort. Conclusions: Majority of PM patients with lymphoma were successfully mobilized and underwent ASCT. Most of them received PLX during the study.

Controlled non-randomised before-after study evaluating the impact of a focused recommendation card on vaccination rates of oncological patients-The Easy Vaccination in Oncology (EVO) strategy.

OBJECTIVE: By implementing a focused must-have vaccination strategy (Easy Vaccination in Oncology [EVO]), we aimed to increase rates for high-impact vaccinations (Streptococcus pneumoniae, influenza, herpes zoster and hepatitis B) in the at-risk population of oncological patients. METHODS: In this German multicentre interventional non-randomised controlled two-arm open trial with repeated cross-sectional data collection, we evaluated the EVO strategy as an easy to implement approach. Vaccination rates were assessed in the outpatient setting and re-assessed after 3 months. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to assess the primary endpoint (Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination rates according to recommendations), taking clustering within clinics into account. RESULTS: Vaccination rates substantially increased in the intervention group; Streptococcus pneumoniae +21.5% (+16.7% according to recommendations), influenza +12.2%, herpes zoster +13.3% (+13.6% age group 50+), and hepatitis B +11%. Vaccination rates in the control group tended to decrease or increase only moderately (-5.8% [-3.8%], +7.4%, +2.1% [1.4%], and -1.7%, respectively). GLMM showed significant effect of the intervention (OR 7.50, 95% CI 2.18-25.80, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This easy-to-implement and resource-saving approach has the potential to increase vaccination rates in oncological patients and to have a considerable impact protecting oncological patients from preventable infectious diseases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the German Resister for Clinical Studies (DRKS) under DRKS00020118.

Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis in this phase 3 trial showed that durvalumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival, as compared with placebo, among patients with stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not have disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here we report the results for the second primary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab intravenously, at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight, or matching placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. Randomization occurred 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy and was stratified according to age, sex, and smoking history. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary end points included the time to death or distant metastasis, the time to second progression, and safety. RESULTS: Of the 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received the assigned intervention (473 patients received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. The 24-month overall survival rate was 66.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7 to 70.4) in the durvalumab group, as compared with 55.6% (95% CI, 48.9 to 61.8) in the placebo group (two-sided P=0.005). Durvalumab significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.68; 99.73% CI, 0.47 to 0.997; P=0.0025). Updated analyses regarding progression-free survival were similar to those previously reported, with a median duration of 17.2 months in the durvalumab group and 5.6 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63). The median time to death or distant metastasis was 28.3 months in the durvalumab group and 16.2 months in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68). A total of 30.5% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 26.1% of those in the placebo group had grade 3 or 4 adverse events of any cause; 15.4% and 9.8% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial regimen because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than placebo. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Characteristics and outcome of patients with low-/intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia treated with arsenic trioxide: an international collaborative study.

The aim of this study was to characterize a large series of 154 patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (median age, 53 years; range, 18-90 years) and evaluate real-life outcome after up-front treatment with arsenic trioxide and all-trans retinoic acid. All patients were included in the prospective NAPOLEON registry (NCT02192619) between 2013 and 2019. The acute promyelocytic leukemia was de novo in 91% (n=140) and therapy-related in 9% (n=14); 13% (n=20) of the patients were older than 70 years. At diagnosis bleeding/hemorrhage was present in 38% and thrombosis in 3%. Complete remission was achieved in 152 patients (99%), whereas two patients (1%) experienced induction death within 18 days after starting therapy. With a median follow-up of 1.99 years (95% confidence interval: 1.61-2.30 years) 1-year and 2-year overall survival rates were 97% (95% confidence interval: 94-100%) and 95% (95% confidence interval: 91-99%), respectively. Age above 70 years was associated with a significantly shorter overall survival (P<0.001) compared to that of younger patients. So far no relapses have been observed. Six patients (4%) died in complete remission at a median of 0.95 years after diagnosis (range, 0.18-2.38 years). Our data confirm the efficiency and durability of arsenic trioxide and all-trans retinoic acid therapy in the primary management of adults with low-/intermediate-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia in the real-life setting, irrespective of age.

Management of Germ Cell Tumours of the Testes in Adult Patients: German Clinical Practice Guideline, PART II - Recommendations for the Treatment of Advanced, Recurrent, and Refractory Disease and Extragonadal and Sex Cord/Stromal Tumours and for the Management of Follow-Up, Toxicity, Quality of Life, Palliative Care, and Supportive Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: We developed the first German evidence- and consensus-based clinical guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of germ cell tumours (GCT) of the testes in adult patients. We present the guideline content in 2 separate publications. The present second part summarizes therecommendations for the treatment of advanced disease stages and for the management of follow-up and late effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 42 experts including 1 patient representative developed the guideline content. Clinical recommendations and statements were based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. For this purpose, evidence tables for several review questions, which were based on systematic literature searches (last search in March 2018), were provided. Thirty-one experts, who were entitled to vote, rated the final clinical recommendations and statements. RESULTS: Here we present the treatment recommendations separately for patients with metastatic seminoma and non-seminomatous GCT (stages IIA/B and IIC/III), for restaging and treatment of residual masses, and for relapsed and refractory disease stages. The recommendations also cover extragonadal and sex cord/stromal tumours, the management of follow-up and toxicity, quality-of-life aspects, palliative care, and supportive therapy. CONCLUSION: Physicians and other medical service providers who are involved in the diagnostics, treatment, and follow-up of GCT (all stages, outpatient and inpatient care as well as rehabilitation) are the users of the present guideline. The guideline also comprises quality indicators for measuring the implementation of the guideline recommendations in routine clinical care; these data will be presented in a future publication.

Management of Germ Cell Tumours of the Testis in Adult Patients. German Clinical Practice Guideline Part I: Epidemiology, Classification, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Fertility Preservation, and Treatment Recommendations for Localized Stages.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first German evidence- and consensus-based clinical guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up on germ cell tumours (GCTs) of the testis in adult patients. We present the guideline content in two publications. Part I covers the topic's background, methods, epidemiology, classification systems, diagnostics, prognosis, and treatment recommendations for the localized stages. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 42 experts including 1 patient representative developed the guideline content. Clinical recommendations and statements were based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. For this purpose, evidence tables for several review questions, which were based on systematic literature searches (last search was in March 2018) were provided. Thirty-one experts entitled to vote, rated the final clinical recommendations and statements. RESULTS: We provide 161 clinical recommendations and statements. We present information on the quality of cancer care and epidemiology and give recommendations for staging and classification as well as for diagnostic procedures. The diagnostic recommendations encompass measures for assessing the primary tumour as well as procedures for the detection of metastases. One chapter addresses prognostic factors. In part I, we separately present the treatment recommendations for germ cell neoplasia in situ, and the organ-confined stages (clinical stage I) of both seminoma and nonseminoma. CONCLUSION: Although GCT is a rare tumour entity with excellent survival rates for the localized stages, its management requires an interdisciplinary approach, including several clinical experts. Quality of care is highly related to institutional expertise and can be reassured by established online-based second-opinion boards. There are very few studies on diagnostics with good level of evidence. Treatment of metastatic GCTs must be tailored to the risk according to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group classification after careful diagnostic evaluation. An interdisciplinary approach as well as the referral of selected patients to centres with proven experience can help achieve favourable clinical outcomes.

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

Does rehabilitation pose a risk to patients suffering from haemato-oncological diseases? Results of a monocentric, retrospective analysis in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: Patients suffering from haemato-oncological diseases tend to have a weakened immune system after the end of their therapy. To avoid infections, patients are advised to limit contact with other people. This poses the question whether a stay at a rehabilitation facility can be recommended. METHODS: We report about 134 rehabilitation stays of patients. Premature discontinuation of the rehabilitation stay was selected as the criterion for a serious complication during the rehabilitation, and the underlying reasons were analysed. RESULTS: Compared to the discontinuation rates of patients suffering from solid tumours (2.4%), the percentage of haemato-oncological patients ending prematurely their rehabilitation stay (8.2%) is significantly increased. This rises to 17.1% for patients who have undergone an allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The analysis of the discontinuation reasons revealed that they were not directly connected to the rehabilitation. Apart from the already known risk factors for premature termination of the rehabilitation stay, we have identified the period (days) between the last therapy and the beginning of the rehabilitation stay as a risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: We show for the first time that a rehabilitation stay does not pose additional risks for patients suffering from haemato-oncological diseases.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Imatinib dose reduction in major molecular response of chronic myeloid leukemia: results from the German Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV.

Standard first-line therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia is treatment with imatinib. In the randomized German Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV, more potent BCR-ABL inhibition with 800 mg ('high-dose') imatinib accelerated achievement of a deep molecular remission. However, whether and when a de-escalation of the dose intensity under high-dose imatinib can be safely performed without increasing the risk of losing deep molecular response is unknown. To gain insights into this clinically relevant question, we analyzed the outcome of imatinib dose reductions from 800 mg to 400 mg daily in the Chronic Myeloid Leukemia-Study IV. Of the 422 patients that were randomized to the 800 mg arm, 68 reduced imatinib to 400 mg after they had achieved at least a stable major molecular response. Of these 68 patients, 61 (90%) maintained major molecular remission on imatinib at 400 mg. Five of the seven patients who lost major molecular remission on the imatinib standard dose regained major molecular remission while still on 400 mg imatinib. Only two of 68 patients had to switch to more potent kinase inhibition to regain major molecular remission. Importantly, the lengths of the intervals between imatinib high-dose treatment before and after achieving major molecular remission were associated with the probabilities of maintaining major molecular remission with the standard dose of imatinib. Taken together, the data support the view that a deep molecular remission achieved with high-dose imatinib can be safely maintained with standard dose in most patients. Study protocol registered at clinicaltrials.gov 00055874.

A randomized phase III study evaluating pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of the PELICAN study.

PURPOSE: The PELICAN trial evaluates for the first time efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus capecitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter trial enrolled first-line MBC patients who were ineligible for endocrine or trastuzumab therapy. Cumulative adjuvant anthracyclines of 360 mg/m2 doxorubicin or equivalent were allowed. Left ventricular ejection fraction of >50 % was required. Patients received PLD 50 mg/m2 every 28 days or capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 21 days. The primary endpoint was time-to-disease progression (TTP). RESULTS: 210 patients were randomized (n = 105, PLD and n = 105, capecitabine). Adjuvant anthracyclines were given to 37 % (PLD) and 36 % (capecitabine) of patients. No significant difference was observed in TTP [HR = 1.21 (95 % confidence interval, 0.838-1.750)]. Median TTP was 6.0 months for both PLD and capecitabine. Comparing patients with or without prior anthracyclines, no significant difference in TTP was observed in the PLD arm (log-rank P = 0.64). For PLD versus capecitabine, respectively, overall survival (median, 23.3 months vs. 26.8 months) and time-to-treatment failure (median, 4.6 months vs. 3.7 months) were not statistically significantly different. Compared to PLD, patients on capecitabine experienced more serious adverse events (P = 0.015) and more cardiac events among patients who had prior anthracycline exposure (18 vs. 8 %; P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Both PLD and capecitabine are effective first-line agents for MBC.

Impact of comorbidities on overall survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: results of the randomized CML study IV.

We studied the influence of comorbidities on remission rate and overall survival (OS) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Participants of the CML Study IV, a randomized 5-arm trial designed to optimize imatinib therapy, were analyzed for comorbidities at diagnosis using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); 511 indexed comorbidities were reported in 1519 CML patients. Age was an additional risk factor in 863 patients. Resulting CCI scores were as follows: CCI 2, n = 589; CCI 3 or 4, n = 599; CCI 5 or 6, n = 229; and CCI ≥ 7, n = 102. No differences in cumulative incidences of accelerated phase, blast crisis, or remission rates were observed between patients in the different CCI groups. Higher CCI was significantly associated with lower OS probabilities. The 8-year OS probabilities were 93.6%, 89.4%, 77.6%, and 46.4% for patients with CCI 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 6, and ≥7, respectively. In multivariate analysis, CCI was the most powerful predictor of OS, which was still valid after removal of its age-related components. Comorbidities have no impact on treatment success but do have a negative effect on OS, indicating that survival of patients with CML is determined more by comorbidities than by CML itself. OS may therefore be inappropriate as an outcome measure for specific CML treatments. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00055874.

Exercise training in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer undergoing palliative chemotherapy: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aimed to investigate the feasibility of two different training programs in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer undergoing palliative chemotherapy. Potential effects of training programs on the patients' quality of life, physical performance, physical activity in daily living, and biological parameters were exploratorily evaluated. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to a resistance (RET) and aerobic exercise training group (AET). Both underwent supervised training sessions twice a week for 12 weeks. RET was performed at 60-80% of the one-repetition maximum and consisted of 2-3 sets of 15-25 repetitions. The AET group performed endurance training at 60-80% of their predetermined pulse rate (for 10 to 30 min). RESULTS: A total of 26 gastrointestinal cancer patients could be randomized. Twenty-one patients completed the 12 weeks of intervention. The median adherence rate to exercise training of all 26 patients was 65%, while in patients who were able to complete 12 weeks, adherence was 75%. The fatigue score of all patients decreased from 66 to 43 post-intervention. Sleeping duration increased in both groups and muscular strength increased in the RET group. A higher number of steps in daily living was associated with higher levels of physical and social functioning as well as lower scores for pain and fatigue. CONCLUSION: RET and AET are feasible in gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy. Both training programs seem to improve cancer-related symptoms as well as the patient's physical activities of daily living.

Multimodal exercise training during myeloablative chemotherapy: a prospective randomized pilot trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer and its treatment-related side effects induce loss of physical performance. This study evaluated the effects of multimodal aerobic and strength exercises on physical performance in hospitalized cancer patients while receiving myeloablative chemotherapy. METHODS: In this prospective pilot study, 48 evaluable patients were randomly assigned to a training (TG, n = 24) or control (CG, n = 24) group. The TG performed an individually supervised exercise program five times a week with ergometer training and strength exercises for 20 min each during the hospitalization period for chemotherapy. The CG received standard physiotherapy. Physical performance was evaluated using spiroergometry, lung function, and muscle strength testing. Treatment-related side effects were assessed by daily interviews, quality of life by EORTC-QLQ-C30, and fatigue using the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Physical performance significantly increased in the TG (8.96 ± 24 W) and decreased in the CG (-7.24 ± 20 W, p = 0.02). At 2-mmol/ml blood lactate concentration, the TG achieved significantly increased oxygen consumption (p = 0.03) and expiratory minute ventilation (p = 0.04) compared to the CG. Furthermore, physical functioning increased significantly in the TG (p = 0.04). Patients in the TG required less antiemetics (p = 0.01) and experienced significantly less fatigue (p = 0.04), although MFIS analysis was not able to detect this beneficial effect. Patients of the CG displayed higher impairments of cognitive (p = 0.02) and psychosocial function (p = 0.03) after chemotherapy. No adverse events due to the study intervention were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal exercise has beneficial effects on physical performance, physical functioning, and treatment-related symptoms even during myeloablative chemotherapy. We suggest an enhanced physical activity intervention program during hospitalization of cancer patients.