Diclofenac versus tramadol for mucositis related pain in head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation-a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis related pain during CTRT in head and neck cancers is a common problem. Unfortunately, in spite of it being common, there is limited evidence for selection of systemic analgesic in this situation. Hence, this study was designed to compare the analgesic effect of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (diclofenac) versus a weak opioid (tramadol). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, parallel design, superiority randomised controlled study. In this study, head and neck cancer patients undergoing radical or adjuvant chemoradiation, who had grade 1 or above mucositis (in accordance with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03) and had pain related to it were randomly assigned to either diclofenac or tramadol for mucositis related pain control. The primary endpoint was analgesia after the first dose. The secondary endpoints were the rate of change in analgesic within 1 week, adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomised, 66 in diclofenac and 62 in tramadol arm. The median area under the curve for graph of pain across time after first dose of pain medication for the diclofenac arm and the tramadol arm was 348.936 units (range: 113.64-1,969.23) and 420.87 (101.97-1,465.96), respectively, (p = 0.05619). Five patients (8.1%) in the tramadol arm and 11 patients (16.7%) in the diclofenac arm required a change in analgesic within 1 week of starting the analgesic (p = 0.184). There was no statistically significant difference in any adverse events between the two arms. However, the rate of any grade of renal dysfunction was numerically higher in the diclofenac arm (10.6% versus 4.8%, p = 0.326). CONCLUSION: In this phase 3 study, evaluating diclofenac and tramadol for chemoradiation induced mucositis pain, there was no statistical difference in analgesic activity of these two drugs.

Lymphopenia during chemoradiation-foe or friend.

BACKGROUND: Severe lymphopenia during treatment is considered to be a poor prognostic factor. The current literature lacks information regarding its impact on various outcomes in locally advanced head-and-neck cancer patients in a prospective setting. METHODS: We recently published a randomised study comparing cisplatin-radiation with nimotuzumab cisplatin-radiation. The database of this study was used for the present analysis. The impact of severe lymphopenia (grade 4 lymphopenia) on progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) was studied using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to see the effect of various factors on the development of severe lymphopenia. RESULTS: We had a total of 536 patients, of which 521 patients (97.7%) developed lymphopenia. Grade 1 lymphopenia was noted in 10 (1.9%) patients, grade 2 in 100 (18.8%), grade 3 in 338 (63.1%) and grade 4 in 73 (13.7%) patients. The median PFS was 20.53 and 60.33 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.797; p-value = 0.208). The median duration of LRC was 56.3 months in severe lymphopenia, whereas it was not reached in non-severe lymphopenia (hazard ratio, 0.81; p-value = 0.337). The median OS was 28.46 versus 47.13 months in severe and non-severe lymphopenia, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; p-value = 0.11). Of various risk factors, gender was significantly associated with severe lymphopenia. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of severe lymphopenia was not significantly associated with the outcomes. Gender is the only risk factor significantly linked to severe lymphopenia.

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

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

Aprepitant for Cough Suppression in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although cough is a common and distressing symptom in patients with lung cancer, there is almost no evidence to guide treatment. Aprepitant, a centrally acting neurokinin-1 inhibitor, significantly decreased cough frequency in a pilot study. METHODS: Patients with advanced lung cancer and cough lasting over 2 weeks despite a cough suppressant were randomized 1:1 to aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and then 80 mg orally on days 2 to 7 with physician's choice of antitussive; or to physician's choice of antitussive alone. Evaluation was at baseline and on days 3, 7, 9, and 12. The primary end point was subjective cough improvement on day 9, measured by the Visual Analog Scale and Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale. Secondary end points included quality of life (QoL) as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Lung Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and toxicity. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Median baseline cough duration was 90 days. Mean Visual Analog Scale scores (in mm) at baseline and day 9 were 68 and 39 in the aprepitant arm and 62 and 49 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001); mean Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale scores at baseline and day 9 were 33 and 23 in the aprepitant arm and 30 and 25 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001). Overall QoL was not significantly different between the two arms; however, aprepitant led to a significant improvement in the cough-specific QoL domain (P = .017). Aprepitant did not increase severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant led to a significant improvement in cough in advanced lung cancer, without increasing severe side effects. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical Trials Registry-India; No.: CTRI/2017/05/008691; URL: http://ctri.nic.in.

Phase I/II Study of Palliative Triple Metronomic Chemotherapy in Platinum-Refractory/Early-Failure Oral Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum-resistant oral cancer has a dismal outcome with limited treatment options. We conducted a phase I/II study to identify the optimal biologic dose (OBD) of methotrexate when given along with erlotinib and celecoxib and to assess the efficacy of this three-drug regimen in advanced oral cancer. METHODS: Patients with platinum-resistant or early-failure squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity were eligible for this study. They were orally administered erlotinib 150 mg once per day, celecoxib 200 mg twice per day, and methotrexate per week. The primary end point of phase I was to determine the OBD of methotrexate, and that of phase II was to determine the 3-month progression-free survival. The OBD of methotrexate was determined on the basis of the clinical benefit rate at 2 months and circulating endothelial cell level at day 8, using a de-escalation model. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was performed during phase I. Phase II consisted of an expansion cohort of 76 patients. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were recruited in phase I, and 9 mg/m2 methotrexate was identified as the OBD. A total of 91 patients were recruited, and the median follow-up was 6.8 months (range, 0 to 16.8 months). The 3-month progression-free survival rate was 71.1% (95% CI, 60.5% to 79.3%), the 6-month overall survival rate was 61.2% (95% CI, 49.2% to 67.8%), and the response rate was 42.9% (95% CI, 33.2% to 53.1%; n = 39). The mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Trial Outcome Index score at day 8 was improved by 6.1 units (standard deviation, 13.6 units) and was maintained around this magnitude (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Triple oral metronomic chemotherapy with erlotinib, methotrexate, and celecoxib is efficacious in platinum-refractory oral cavity cancers and represents a new therapeutic option in patients with poor prognosis.