Induction-concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without sintilimab in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China (CONTINUUM): a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 therapy and chemotherapy is a recommended first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but the role of PD-1 blockade remains unknown in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We assessed the addition of sintilimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, to standard chemoradiotherapy in this patient population. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at nine hospitals in China. Adults aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed high-risk non-metastatic stage III-IVa locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (excluding T3-4N0 and T3N1) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using blocks of four to receive gemcitabine and cisplatin induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent cisplatin radiotherapy (standard therapy group) or standard therapy with 200 mg sintilimab intravenously once every 3 weeks for 12 cycles (comprising three induction, three concurrent, and six adjuvant cycles to radiotherapy; sintilimab group). The primary endpoint was event-free survival from randomisation to disease recurrence (locoregional or distant) or death from any cause in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03700476) and is now completed; follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2018, and March 31, 2020, 425 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the sintilimab (n=210) or standard therapy groups (n=215). At median follow-up of 41·9 months (IQR 38·0-44·8; 389 alive at primary data cutoff [Feb 28, 2023] and 366 [94%] had at least 36 months of follow-up), event-free survival was higher in the sintilimab group compared with the standard therapy group (36-month rates 86% [95% CI 81-90] vs 76% [70-81]; stratified hazard ratio 0·59 [0·38-0·92]; p=0·019). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 155 (74%) in the sintilimab group versus 140 (65%) in the standard therapy group, with the most common being stomatitis (68 [33%] vs 64 [30%]), leukopenia (54 [26%] vs 48 [22%]), and neutropenia (50 [24%] vs 46 [21%]). Two (1%) patients died in the sintilimab group (both considered to be immune-related) and one (<1%) in the standard therapy group. Grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 20 (10%) patients in the sintilimab group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of sintilimab to chemoradiotherapy improved event-free survival, albeit with higher but manageable adverse events. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine whether this regimen can be considered as the standard of care for patients with high-risk locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation, Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission, and Cancer Innovative Research Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, randomised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with significant improvements in overall survival compared with placebo, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in people with advanced biliary tract cancer at the pre-planned intermin analysis. In this paper, we present patient-reported outcomes from TOPAZ-1. METHODS: In TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235), participants aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and one or more measurable lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. Participants received 1500 mg durvalumab or matched placebo intravenously every 3 weeks (on day 1 of the cycle) for up to eight cycles in combination with 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 25 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Thereafter, participants received either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable vs recurrent) and primary tumour location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder cancer). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed as a secondary outcome in all participants who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's 30-item Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the 21-item Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Quality of Life Module (QLQ-BIL21). We calculated time to deterioration-ie, time from randomisation to an absolute decrease of at least 10 points in a patient-reported outcome that was confirmed at a subsequent visit or the date of death (by any cause) in the absence of deterioration-and adjusted mean change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2019, and Dec 11, 2020, 685 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group. Overall, 345 (50%) of participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Data for the QLQ-C30 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median follow-up 9·9 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·1]). Data for the QLQ-BIL21 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median follow-up 10·2 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·3]). The proportions of participants in both groups who completed questionnaires were high and baseline scores were mostly similar across treatment groups. For global health status or quality of life, functioning, and symptoms, we noted no difference in time to deterioration or adjusted mean changes from baseline were observed between groups. Median time to deterioration of global health status or quality of life was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6 to 8·9) in the durvalumab group and 6·7 months (5·6 to 7·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·12]). The adjusted mean change from baseline was 1·23 (95% CI -0·71 to 3·16) in the durvalumab group and 0·35 (-1·63 to 2·32) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not have a detrimental effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin is a tolerable treatment regimen in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Site-specific therapy guided by a 90-gene expression assay versus empirical chemotherapy in patients with cancer of unknown primary (Fudan CUP-001): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical chemotherapy remains the standard of care in patients with unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Gene-expression profiling assays have been developed to identify the tissue of origin in patients with CUP; however, their clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of site-specific therapy directed by a 90-gene expression assay compared with empirical chemotherapy in patients with CUP. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was conducted at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China). We enrolled patients aged 18-75 years, with previously untreated CUP (histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or poorly differentiated neoplasms) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, who were not amenable to local radical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive either site-specific therapy or empirical chemotherapy (taxane [175 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1] plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 by intravenous infusion on day 1], or gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8] plus platinum [same as above]). The minimisation factors were ECOG performance status and the extent of the disease. Clinicians and patients were not masked to interventions. The tumour origin in the site-specific therapy group was predicted by the 90-gene expression assay and treatments were administered accordingly. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial has been completed and the analysis is final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03278600). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 182 patients (105 [58%] male, 77 [42%] female) were randomly assigned to receive site-specific therapy (n=91) or empirical chemotherapy (n=91). The five most commonly predicted tissues of origin in the site-specific therapy group were gastro-oesophagus (14 [15%]), lung (12 [13%]), ovary (11 [12%]), cervix (11 [12%]), and breast (nine [10%]). At the data cutoff date (April 30, 2023), median follow-up was 33·3 months (IQR 30·4-51·0) for the site-specific therapy group and 30·9 months (27·6-35·5) for the empirical chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with site-specific therapy than with empirical chemotherapy (9·6 months [95% CI 8·4-11·9] vs 6·6 months [5·5-7·9]; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·49-0·93]; p=0·017). Among the 167 patients who started planned treatment, 46 (56%) of 82 patients in the site-specific therapy group and 52 (61%) of 85 patients in the empirical chemotherapy group had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events; the most frequent of these in the site-specific therapy and empirical chemotherapy groups were decreased neutrophil count (36 [44%] vs 42 [49%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [21%] vs 26 [31%]), and anaemia (ten [12%] vs nine [11%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) patients in the site-specific therapy group and two (2%) in the empirical chemotherapy group. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: This single-centre randomised trial showed that site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay could improve progression-free survival compared with empirical chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated CUP. Site-specific prediction by the 90-gene expression assay might provide more disease information and expand the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients. FUNDING: Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Program for Shanghai Outstanding Academic Leader, and Shanghai Anticancer Association SOAR PROJECT. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Pharmacogenomic study of gemcitabine efficacy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: A multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study (GENESECT study).

BACKGROUND: Genetic polymorphisms of molecules are known to cause individual differences in the therapeutic efficacy of anticancer drugs. However, to date, germline mutations (but not somatic mutations) for anticancer drugs have not been adequately studied. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between germline polymorphisms of gemcitabine metabolic and transporter genes with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) response (decrease ≥50% from the pretreatment level at 8 weeks) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who receive gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who were receiving gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel combination chemotherapy. Thirteen polymorphisms that may be involved in gemcitabine responsiveness were genotyped, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association of these genotypes with CA 19-9 response and OS. The significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: In total, 180 patients from 11 hospitals in Japan were registered, and 159 patients whose CA 19-9 response could be assessed were included in the final analysis. Patients who had a CA 19-9 response had significantly longer OS (372 vs. 241 days; p = .007). RRM1 2464A>G and RRM2 175T>G polymorphisms suggested a weak association with CA 19-9 response and OS, but it was not statistically significant. COX-2 -765G>C polymorphism did not significantly correlate with CA 19-9 response but was significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio, 2.031; p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic polymorphisms from the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine did not indicate a significant association with efficacy, but COX-2 polymorphisms involved in tumor cell proliferation might affect OS.

Clinical utility of BRCA and ATM mutation status in circulating tumour DNA for treatment selection in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Identification of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) remains a challenge in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). We investigated the utility of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) profiling in the assessment of BRCA1/2 and ATM mutation status and treatment selection in APC. METHODS: We analysed clinical and ctDNA data of 702 patients with APC enroled in GOZILA, a ctDNA profiling study using Guardant360. RESULTS: Inactivating BRCA1/2 and ATM mutations were detected in 4.8% (putative germline, 3.7%) and 4.4% (putative germline, 0.9%) of patients, respectively. Objective response (63.2% vs. 16.2%) and PFS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.93) on platinum-containing chemotherapy were significantly better in patients with putative germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) mutation than those without. In contrast, putative gBRCA mutation had no impact on the efficacy of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. In 2 patients treated with platinum-containing therapy, putative BRCA2 reversion mutations were detected. Three of seven patients with somatic BRCA mutations responded to platinum-containing therapy, while only one of four with putative germline ATM mutations did. One-third of somatic ATM mutations were in genomic loci associated with clonal haematopoiesis. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive ctDNA profiling provides clinically relevant information regarding HRD status. It can be a practical, convenient option for HRD screening in APC.

Canadian cancer trials group LY.17: A randomized phase II study evaluating novel salvage therapy pre-autologous stem cell transplant in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma-outcome of rituximab-dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin (R-DICEP) versus R-GDP.

The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) LY.17 is an ongoing multi-arm randomized phase II trial evaluating novel salvage therapies compared with R-GDP (rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin) in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT)-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR-DLBCL). This component of the LY.17 trial evaluated a dose-intensive chemotherapy approach using a single cycle of inpatient R-DICEP (rituximab, dose-intensive cyclophosphamide, etoposide and cisplatin) to achieve both lymphoma response and stem cell mobilization, shortening time to ASCT. This report is the result of the protocol-specified second interim analysis of the 67 patients who were randomized to either 1 cycle of R-DICEP or to 3 cycles of R-GDP. The overall response rate (ORR) was 65.6% for R-DICEP and 48.6% for R-GDP. The ASCT rate was 71.9% versus 54.3%, and 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42% versus 32%, respectively, for R-DICEP versus R-GDP. Although the improvement in ORR for R-DICEP versus R-GDP exceeded the pre-specified 10% threshold to proceed to full accrual of 64 patients/arm, higher rates of grade 3-5 toxicities, and the need for hospitalization led to the decision to stop this arm of the study. CCTG LY.17 will continue to evaluate different salvage regimens that incorporate novel agents.

Treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer using localized trans-arterial micro perfusion of gemcitabine: combined analysis of RR1 and RR2.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) comprises 40% of pancreatic cancer diagnoses and has a relatively poor prognosis. Trans-arterial micro perfusion (TAMP)-mediated chemotherapy delivery to the primary tumor is a novel approach worthy of investigation. The RR1 (dose escalation) and RR2 (observational) studies examined the safety and preliminary efficacy of TAMP-delivered gemcitabine for LAPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RR1 and RR2 data were pooled. Both studies enrolled patients with LAPC with histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma. Participant data, including age, sex, race, stage, previous treatments, toxicity, disease progression, and death, were collected. Median number of cycles and average treatment dosage were calculated. Overall survival (OS) was determined for the whole group and separately for patients who received and did not receive previous treatments. Aims of the analysis were to assess procedure safety, OS, and evaluate factors associated with OS. RESULTS: The median age of the 43 patients enrolled in RR1 and RR2 was 72 years (range, 51-88 years). Median OS for the 35 eligible patients with stage III disease was 12.6 months (95% CI, 2.1-54.2 months). Previous chemoradiation was associated with significantly longer OS [27.1 months (95% CI, 8.4-40.6 months)] compared to previous systemic chemotherapy [14.6 months (95% CI, 6.4-54.2 months)] or no prior treatment [7.0 months (95% CI, 2.1-35.4 months)] (P < .001). The most common adverse events were GI related (abdominal pain, emesis, and vomiting); the most common grade 3 toxicity was sepsis. CONCLUSION: Study results indicate that TAMP-mediated gemcitabine delivery in patients with LAPC is potentially safe, feasible, and provides potential clinical benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02237157 (RR1) and NCT02591082 (RR2).

Nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Encouraging antitumor activity of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) has been shown in several small-scale studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of AS versus standard-of-care nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) as a first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, phase II trial, eligible patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic PC were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; S-1 twice daily on days 1 through 14) or AG (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) for 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Between July 16, 2019, and September 9, 2022, 62 patients (AS, n = 32; AG, n = 30) were treated and evaluated. With a median follow-up of 8.36 months at preplanned interim analysis (data cutoff, March 24, 2023), the median PFS (8.48 vs 4.47 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.402; P = .002) and overall survival (OS; 13.73 vs 9.59 months; HR, 0.226; P < .001) in the AS group were significantly longer compared to the AG group. More patients had objective response in the AS group than AG group (37.50% vs 6.67%; P = .005). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia and leucopenia in both groups, and gamma glutamyl transferase increase was observed only in the AG group. CONCLUSION: The first-line AS regimen significantly extended both PFS and OS of Chinese patients with advanced PC when compared with the AG regimen, with a comparable safety profile. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03636308).

IMpassion132 double-blind randomised phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab for early relapsing unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors improve the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC), but randomised data in rapidly relapsing aTNBC are scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMpassion132 (NCT03371017) enrolled patients with aTNBC relapsing <12 months after last chemotherapy dose (anthracycline and taxane required) or surgery for early TNBC. PD-L1 status was centrally assessed using SP142 before randomisation. Initially patients were enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. From August 2019, enrolment was restricted to PD-L1-positive (tumour immune cell ≥1%) aTNBC. Patients were randomised 1:1 to placebo or atezolizumab 1200 mg every 21 days with investigator-selected chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were chemotherapy regimen (carboplatin plus gemcitabine or capecitabine monotherapy), visceral (lung and/or liver) metastases and (initially) PD-L1 status. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), tested hierarchically in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours and then, if positive, in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (all-comer patients randomised pre-August 2019). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: Among 354 patients with rapidly relapsing PD-L1-positive aTNBC, 68% had a disease-free interval of <6 months and 73% received carboplatin/gemcitabine. The OS hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.73-1.20, P = 0.59; median 11.2 months with placebo versus 12.1 months with atezolizumab). mITT and subgroup results were consistent. Median PFS was 4 months across treatment arms and populations. ORRs were 28% with placebo versus 40% with atezolizumab. Adverse events (predominantly haematological) were similar between arms and as expected with atezolizumab plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or capecitabine following recent chemotherapy exposure. CONCLUSIONS: OS, which is dismal in patients with TNBC relapsing within <12 months, was not improved by adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy. A biology-based definition of intrinsic resistance to immunotherapy in aTNBC is urgently needed to develop novel therapies for these patients in next-generation clinical trials.

Development and validation of AI-assisted transcriptomic signatures to personalize adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: After surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), patients are predominantly treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, commonly consisting of gemcitabine (GEM)-based regimens or the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimen. While mFFX regimen has been shown to be more effective than GEM-based regimens, it is also associated with higher toxicity. Current treatment decisions are based on patient performance status rather than on the molecular characteristics of the tumor. To address this gap, the goal of this study was to develop drug-specific transcriptomic signatures for personalized chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used PDAC datasets from preclinical models, encompassing chemotherapy response profiles for the mFFX regimen components. From them we identified specific gene transcripts associated with chemotherapy response. Three transcriptomic artificial intelligence signatures were obtained by combining independent component analysis and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator-random forest approach. We integrated a previously developed GEM signature with three newly developed ones. The machine learning strategy employed to enhance these signatures incorporates transcriptomic features from the tumor microenvironment, leading to the development of the 'Pancreas-View' tool ultimately clinically validated in a cohort of 343 patients from the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial. RESULTS: Patients who were predicted to be sensitive to the administered drugs (n = 164; 47.8%) had longer disease-free survival (DFS) than the other patients. The median DFS in the mFFX-sensitive group treated with mFFX was 50.0 months [stratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.44, P < 0.001] and 33.7 months (stratified HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.59, P < 0.001) in the GEM-sensitive group when treated with GEM. Comparatively patients with signature predictions unmatched with the treatments (n = 86; 25.1%) or those resistant to all drugs (n = 93; 27.1%) had shorter DFS (10.6 and 10.8 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a transcriptome-based tool that was developed using preclinical models and machine learning to accurately predict sensitivity to mFFX and GEM.

The efficacy and safety of adding PD-1 blockade to induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC-CCRT) for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: an observational, propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the success of PD-1 blockade in recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), its effect for locoregionally advanced NPC (LANPC) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of adding PD-1 blockade to the current standard treatment (gemcitabine and cisplatin IC  plus cisplatin CCRT ) for LANPC patients. METHODS: From January 2020 to November 2022, 347 patients with non-metastatic high-risk LANPC (stage III-IVA, excluding T3-4N0) were included. Of the 347 patients, 268 patients were treated with standard treatment (IC-CCRT), and 79 received PD-1 blockade plus IC-CCRT (PD-1 group). For the PD-1 group, PD-1 blockade was given intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 9 cycles (3 induction and 6 adjuvant). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) (i.e. freedom from local/regional/distant failure or death). The propensity score matching (PSM) with the ratio of 1:2 was performed to control confounding factors. RESULTS: After PSM analysis, 150 patients receiving standard treatment and 75 patients receiving additional PD-1 blockade remained in the current analysis. After three cycles of IC, the PD-1 group had significantly higher rates of complete response (defined as disappearance of all target lesions; 24% vs. 9%; P = 0.006) and complete biological response (defined as undetectable cell-free Epstein-Barr virus DNA, cfEBV DNA; 79% vs. 65%; P = 0.046) than that in the standard group. And the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity during IC was 47% in the PD-1 group and 41% in the standard group, with no significant difference (P = 0.396). During follow-up period, additional PD-1 blockade to standard treatment improved 3-year DFS from 84 to 95%, with marginal statistical significance (HR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.06-1.19; P = 0.064). CONCLUSION: Additiaonl PD-1 blockade to gemcitabine and cisplatin IC and adjuvant treatment results in significant improvement in tumor regression, cfEBV DNA clearance, superior DFS, and comparable toxicity profiles in high-risk LANPC patients.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib combined with anti-PD-1 antibodies plus GEMOX chemotherapy as non-first-line systemic therapy in advanced gallbladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib, programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibodies, and gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) chemotherapy have shown significant antitumor activity as first-line therapy against biliary tract cancer. This study evaluated their efficacy and safety as non-first-line therapy in advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). METHODS: Patients with advanced GBC who received lenvatinib combined with anti-PD-1 antibodies and GEMOX chemotherapy as a non-first-line therapy were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients with advanced GBC were included in this study. The median follow-up time was 11.53 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.2-20.9) months, and the ORR was 36.1%. The median OS and PFS were 15.1 (95% CI: 3.2-26.9) and 6.1 (95% CI: 4.9-7.2) months, respectively. The disease control rate (DCR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) were 75% and 61.1%, respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression had significantly longer PFS and OS than those without PD-L1 expression. Additionally, patients with a neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) < 5.57 had a longer OS than those with an NLR ≥ 5.57. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), with 61.1% experiencing grade 3 or 4 AEs, including myelosuppression (13.9%) and fatigue (13.3%), alanine transaminase or aspartate transaminase levels (8.3%), and diarrhea (8.3%). No grade 5 AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with lenvatinib and GEMOX chemotherapy are effective and well-tolerated as a non-first-line therapy in advanced GBC. PD-L1 expression and baseline NLR may potentially predict treatment efficacy.

A Phase 2 Trial of Intravesical Gemcitabine and Docetaxel in the Treatment of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin‒Naïve Nonmuscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder.

PURPOSE: Combination intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (GemDoce) has demonstrated efficacy as second-line therapy for patients with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)‒unresponsive nonmuscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (NMIBC). In the context of widespread BCG shortages, we performed a phase 2 prospective trial to assess GemDoce for BCG-naïve NMIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective, single-arm, open-label phase 2 trial for patients with BCG-naïve high-risk NMIBC. Intravesical GemDoce was given weekly for 6 weeks as induction followed by monthly maintenance therapy for 2 years among responders. The primary end point was 3-month complete response, and key secondary end points included adverse events (AEs) and 12-month recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled between August 2020 and August 2022 with median follow-up of 19.6 months. The pretreatment pathologic stages were high-grade (HG) T1 with carcinoma in situ (CIS; n = 7), HGT1 without CIS (n = 6), HGTa (n = 9), and CIS alone (n = 3). The 3-month complete response rate was 100% and recurrence-free survival at 12 months was 92%. Two patients with pretreatment HGT1 had HGT1 recurrences at 9 and 12 months. No patients progressed to T2 disease, underwent radical cystectomy, or had any radiographic evidence of progressive disease. Grade 1 AEs were common (23/25 patients) including hematuria, urinary frequency, urgency, and fatigue. Five patients (20%) experienced a grade 3 AE including hematuria and UTI. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, GemDoce was well tolerated with promising efficacy for patients with BCG-naïve high-risk NMIBC.

Results of a Randomized Clinical Study of Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Plus S-1 as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (RCT, CSGO-HBP-015).

BACKGROUND: The optimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimen for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains uncertain. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GA) and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS), in patients with resectable/borderline-resectable (R/BR) PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with R/BR-PDAC were enrolled and randomly allocated. They received two cycles (2 months) of each standard protocol, followed by radical surgery for those without tumor progression in general hospitals belonging to our intergroup. The primary endpoint was to determine the superior regimen on the basis of achieving a 10% increase in the rate of patients with progression-free survival (PFS) at 2 years from allocation. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were enrolled, with 94 patients randomly assigned to the GS arm (N = 46) or GA arm (N = 48). The 2-year PFS rates did not show the stipulated difference [GA, 31% (24-38%)/GS, 26% (18-33%)], but the Kaplan-Myer analysis showed significance (median PFS, GA/GS 14 months/9 months, P = 0.048; HR 0.71). Secondary endpoint comparisons yielded the following results (GA/GS arm, P-value): rates of severe adverse events during NAC, 73%/78%, P = 0.55; completion rates of the stipulated NAC, 92%/83%, P = 0.71; resection rates, 85%/72%, P = 0.10; average tumor marker (CA19-9) reduction rates, -50%/-21%, P = 0.01; average numbers of lymph node metastasis, 1.7/3.2, P = 0.04; and median overall survival times, 42/22 months, P = 0.26. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that GA and GS are viable neoadjuvant treatment regimens in R/BR-PDAC. Although the GA group exhibited a favorable PFS outcome, the primary endpoint was not achieved.

Adjuvant Gemcitabine Versus Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant FOLFIRINOX in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: The Randomized Multicenter Phase II NEPAFOX Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although addition of adjuvant chemotherapy is the current standard, the prognosis of pancreatic cancers still remains poor. The NEPAFOX trial evaluated perioperative treatment with FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial randomized patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer without metastases into arm (A,) upfront surgery plus adjuvant gemcitabine, or arm (B,) perioperative FOLFIRINOX. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Owing to poor accrual, recruitment was prematurely stopped after randomization of 40 of the planned 126 patients (A: 21, B: 19). Overall, approximately three-quarters were classified as primarily resectable (A: 16, B: 15), and the remaining patients were classified as borderline resectable (A: 5, B: 4). Of the 12 evaluable patients, 3 achieved partial response under neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Of the 21 patients in arm A and 19 patients in arm B, 17 and 7 underwent curative surgery, and R0-resection was achieved in 77% and 71%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity occurred in 72% in arm A and 46% in arm B, whereas non-surgical toxicity was comparable in both arms. Median RFS/PFS was almost doubled in arm B (14.1 months) compared with arm A (8.4 months) in the population with surgical resection, whereas median OS was comparable between both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis was only descriptive owing to small patient numbers, no safety issues regarding surgical complications were observed in the perioperative FOLFIRINOX arm. Thus, considering the small number of patients, perioperative treatment approach appears feasible and potentially effective in well-selected cohorts of patients. In pancreatic cancer, patient selection before initiation of neoadjuvant therapy appears to be critical.

Chemotherapy switch for localized pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized (that is non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with an inadequate response or toxicity to first-line chemotherapy may benefit from chemotherapy switch. The aim was to explore the available data on the use and effect of chemotherapy switch, as reported in the literature. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), the Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar on 1 December 2023. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who underwent chemotherapy switch and the carbohydrate antigen 19-9 response and resection, R0 resection, and ypN0 resection rates after chemotherapy switch. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of five retrospective studies, representing 863 patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, were included and 226 of the 863 patients underwent chemotherapy switch. In four studies, first-line chemotherapy consisted of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan with oxaliplatin ('FOLFIRINOX') and patients were switched to gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel. Reasons for chemotherapy switch included an inadequate biochemical, clinical, or radiological response, or toxicity. Three studies compared patients who underwent chemotherapy switch with patients who only received first-line chemotherapy and found that the proportion of patients who underwent chemotherapy switch was 20.5% (95% c.i. 10.5% to 36.3%). The pooled resection rate after chemotherapy switch was 42.0% (95% c.i. 16.6% to 72.5%). Two studies compared the chance of resection after chemotherapy switch versus first-line chemotherapy alone and found a risk ratio of 0.88 (95% c.i. 0.65 to 1.18). Two studies, with a combined total of 576 patients, found similar postoperative survival for patients who underwent chemotherapy switch and patients who only received first-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: One in five patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent chemotherapy switch after an inadequate response or toxicity to first-line chemotherapy. The pooled resection rate after chemotherapy switch was 42% and similar in overall survival compared with first-line chemotherapy only. Three ongoing trials are investigating chemotherapy switch in patients with an inadequate radiological or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 response.

Spartalizumab in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy with or without canakinumab in patients with PD-L1-unselected, metastatic NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Despite promising outcomes of treatment with anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 agents in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in the first-line setting, a significant unmet medical need remains in patients with PD-L1-unselected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase 1b study comprising dose-confirmation and dose-expansion parts investigated the combination of spartalizumab and various PDC regimens, with or without canakinumab, in treatment-naïve patients with PD-L1-unselected, metastatic NSCLC. The primary objectives were to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended dose for expansion (RDE) of spartalizumab, with or without canakinumab, in combination with PDC in the dose-confirmation part and antitumor activity of spartalizumab in the dose-expansion part. RESULTS: The MTD/RDE of spartalizumab was 300 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) when administered with either gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2)/cisplatin (75 mg/m2) (group A; no dose-limiting toxicities [DLTs]), pemetrexed (500 mg/m2)/cisplatin (group B; 2 DLTs: grade 2 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome and grade 4 hyponatremia), or paclitaxel (200 mg/m2)/carboplatin area under the curve 6 min*mg/mL (group C; 1 DLT: grade 4 neutropenic colitis). The RDE of canakinumab combined with spartalizumab and pemetrexed/cisplatin (group E; no DLTs) was 200 mg Q3W (no dose-expansion part was initiated). No new safety signals were identified. In groups A, B, C, and E, the overall response rates were 57.6%, 55.3%, 51.5%, and 57.1%, respectively. Group B compared with other groups had the longest median progression-free survival (10.4 months vs. 6.2-7.5 months), overall survival (29.7 months vs. 16.1-21.0 months), and duration of response (30.1 months vs. 6.0-8.2 months). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of spartalizumab and PDC, with or without canakinumab, was well tolerated across treatment groups. The antitumor activity across treatment groups was comparable with that of pembrolizumab and pemetrexed combination. Canakinumab did not appear to improve the antitumor activity when combined with spartalizumab, pemetrexed and cisplatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov with identifier no. NCT03064854. Date of Registration: 06 February 2017.

Digital subtraction angiography-guided pancreatic arterial infusion of GEMOX chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a phase II, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing with intravenous chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma lacks effective treatment options, and systemic gemcitabine-based chemotherapy offers only marginal survival benefits at the cost of significant toxicities and adverse events. New therapeutic options with better drug availability are warranted. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of digital subtraction angiography (DSA)-guided pancreatic arterial infusion (PAI) versus intravenous chemotherapy (IVC) using the gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) regimen in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled 51 eligible treatment-naive patients with unresectable PC to receive GEMOX treatment via PAI or IVC (1:1 ratio randomization) from December 2015 to December 2019. Cycles were repeated monthly, and each process consisted of two treatments administered bi-weekly. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), 1-year survival, 6-month survival, tumor-site subgroup survival, and incidences of adverse events were compared. RESULTS: The median OS of the PAI and IVC groups were 9.93 months and 10.07 months, respectively (p = 0.3049). The median PFS of the PAI and IVC groups were 5.07 months and 4.23 months (p = 0.1088). No significant differences were found in the ORR (11.54% vs. 4%, p = 0.6312), DCR (53.85% vs. 44%, p = 0.482), and 1-year OS rate (44% vs. 20.92%, p = 0.27) in PAI and IVC groups. The 6-month OS rate was significantly higher in the PAI group (100%) than in the IVC group (83.67%) (p = 0.0173). The median OS of patients in PAI group with pancreatic head and neck tumors were significantly higher than those of body and tail tumors (12.867 months vs. 9 months, p = 0.0214). The incidences of hematologic disorders, liver function disorders, and digestive disorders in the IVC group were higher than in the PAI group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: GEMOX PAI therapy presented a higher 6-month OS rate and fewer adverse events than IVC in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. Those with pancreatic head and neck tumors may yield a superior treatment outcome from PAI treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02635971. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 21/12/2015.

Randomized phase 2 study of valproic acid combined with simvastatin and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel-based regimens in untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients: the VESPA trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) patients have very poor prognosis highlighting the urgent need of novel treatments. In this regard, repurposing non-oncology already-approved drugs might be an attractive strategy to offer more-effective treatment easily tested in clinical trials. Accumulating evidence suggests that epigenetic deregulation is a hallmark of cancer contributing to treatment resistance in several solid tumors, including PDAC. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) are epigenetic drugs we have investigated preclinically and clinically as anticancer agents. Valproic acid (VPA) is a generic low-cost anticonvulsant and mood stabilizer with HDAC inhibitory activity, and anticancer properties also demonstrated in PDAC models. Statins use was reported to be associated with lower mortality risk in patients with pancreatic cancer and statins have been shown to have a direct antitumor effect when used alone or in combination therapy. We recently showed capability of VPA/Simvastatin (SIM) combination to potentiate the antitumor activity of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in vitro and in vivo PDAC preclinical models. METHODS/DESIGN: VESPA is a patient-centric open label randomized multicenter phase-II investigator-initiated trial, evaluating the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of VPA/SIM plus first line gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel-based regimens (AG or PAXG) (experimental arm) versus chemotherapy alone (standard arm) in mPDAC patients. The study involves Italian and Spanish oncology centers and includes an initial 6-patients safety run-in-phase. A sample size of 240 patients (120 for each arm) was calculated under the hypothesis that the addition of VPA/SIM to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel-based regimens may extend progression free survival from 6 to 9 months in the experimental arm. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, response rate, disease control rate, duration of response, CA 19.9 reduction, toxicity, and quality of life. The study includes a patient engagement plan and complementary biomarkers studies on tumor and blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: VESPA is the first trial evaluating efficacy and safety of two repurposed drugs in oncology such as VPA and SIM, in combination with standard chemotherapy, with the aim of improving mPDAC survival. The study is ongoing. Enrollment started in June 2023 and a total of 63 patients have been enrolled as of June 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2022-004154-63; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05821556, posted 2023/04/20.

Treatment outcomes of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in pancreatic cancer patients with malignant ascites.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy has been shown to improve the prognosis in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC); however, the efficacy and safety of GnP in PC patients with malignant ascites (MA) remains unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated PC patients with peritoneal dissemination who had received GnP as first-line chemotherapy at our institution between March 2015 and August 2021. The following patient data were reviewed: patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and relative dose intensity (RDI). The severity of MA was categorized based on the CT findings as grade 1 (small), grade 2 (moderate), or grade 3 (massive). RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were included; the study endpoints were compared between patients with each ascites grade and 41 patients without MA. The MA was classified as grade 1 in 85 patients, grade 2 in 41 patients, and grade 3 in 22 patients. In the patients with MA, the median OS, PFS and ORR were 11.2 months, 5.7 months and 24.3%, respectively. The OS and PFS decreased with increasing the severity of MA; in particular, patients with grade 2 and 3 showed a poorer prognosis. There were no differences in AEs, except for anorexia, or the RDI according to the severity of MA. CONCLUSION: GnP showed moderate efficacy with manageable safety profile in PC patients with MA. However, PC patients with moderate to massive ascites still have a dismal prognosis, and further development of effective treatments is needed.