Phase 3 RCT comparing docetaxel-platinum with docetaxel-platinum-5FU as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with TPF (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5FU) is one of the treatment options in very locally advanced oral cancer with a survival advantage over PF (cisplatin and 5FU). TP (docetaxel and cisplatin) has shown promising results with a lower rate of adverse events but has never been compared to TPF. METHODS: In this phase 3 randomized superiority study, adult patients with borderline resectable locally advanced oral cancers were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either TP or TPF. After the administration of 2 cycles, patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic and further treatment was planned. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. RESULTS: 495 patients were randomized in this study, 248 patients in TP arm and 247 in TPF arm. The 5-year OS was 18.5% (95% CI 13.8-23.7) and 23.9% (95% CI 18.1-30.1) in TP and TPF arms, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.778; 95% CI 0.637-0.952; P = 0.015). Following NACT, 43.8% were deemed resectable, but 34.5% underwent surgery. The 5-year OS was 50.7% (95% CI 41.5-59.1) and 5% (95%CI 2.9-8.1), respectively, in the surgically resected versus unresected cohort post NACT (P < 0.0001). Grade 3 or above adverse events were seen in 97 (39.1%) and 179 (72.5%) patients in the TP and TPF arms, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: NACT with TPF has a survival benefit over TP in borderline resectable oral cancers, with an increase in toxicity which is manageable. Patients who undergo surgery achieve a relatively good, sustained survival.

Mebendazole plus lomustine or temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: A randomised open-label phase II trial.

Background: Recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) has dismal outcomes and limited treatment options. Mebendazole (MBZ) has activity in glioma both in-vivo and in-vitro, and is well tolerated in combination with lomustine (CCNU) and temozolomide (TMZ). In this study, we sought to determine whether the addition of MBZ to CCNU or TMZ would improve overall survival (OS) in recurrent GBM. Methods: In this phase II randomized open-label trial, adult patients with ECOG PS 0-3, with recurrent GBM who were not eligible for re-radiation, were randomized 1:1 to the CCNU-MBZ and TMZ-MBZ arms. CCNU was administered at 110 mg/m2 every 6 weeks with MBZ 800 mg thrice daily and TMZ was administered at 200 mg/m2 once daily on days 1-5 of a 28 days cycle with MBZ 1600 mg thrice daily. The primary endpoint was OS at 9 months. A 9-month OS of 55% or more in any arm was hypothesized to warrant further evaluation and a value below 35% was too low to warrant further investigation. OS was analyzed using intention to treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Per-protocol analysis was used for safety analysis. Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2018/01/011542. Findings: Participants were recruited from 14th March 2019 to 18th June 2021, 44 patients were randomised on each arm. At 17.4 months, 68 events for OS analysis had occurred, 33 in the TMZ-MBZ and 35 in the CCNU-MBZ arm. The 9-month OS was 36.6% (95% CI 22.3-51.0) and 45% (95% CI 29.6-59.2) in the TMZ-MBZ and CCNU-MBZ arms respectively, in the ITT population. ECOG PS was the only independent prognostic factor impacting OS (HR-0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.85; P = 0.012). Grade 3-5 adverse events were seen in 8 (18.6%; n = 43) and 4 (9.5%; n = 42) patients in the TMZ-MBZ and CCNU-MBZ arms respectively. There were no treatment related deaths. Interpretation: The addition of MBZ to TMZ or CCNU failed to achieve the pre-set benchmark of 55% 9-month OS. This was probably due to 28.6% of patients having poor PS of 2-3. Funding: Brain Tumor Foundation (BTF) of India, Indian Cooperative Oncology Network (ICON), and India Cancer Research Consortium (ICRC) under ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research).

The current treatment approach to adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (AYA-ALL): challenges and considerations.

INTRODUCTION: AYA-ALL differs from pediatric ALL in terms of clinical, biological, psychosocial factors and access to care and has an inferior outcome. It is now being recognized that pediatric-inspired protocols are superior to adult protocols for this cohort, but given the lack of randomized trials, several questions remain unanswered. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we discuss how AYA-ALL is different from the pediatric ALL population, compare AYA-ALL with ALL in middle and older age adults, review the studies that have enrolled the AYA cohort, summarize risk-stratified and response-adapted approaches, describe the biological subtypes, and review the novel agents/approaches under evaluation. EXPERT OPINION: AYA-ALL is a complex and challenging disease that needs multidisciplinary and focused care. Well-designed clinical trials that focus on this cohort are needed to further improve the outcomes.