Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

A management of neutropenia using granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisted of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: An exploratory study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support for chemotherapy consisting of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, (2) a schedule to receive three courses of induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 days 1-5, every 3 weeks), (3) stage IB-III, (4) 20-75 years old, (5) 0-1 performance status, (6) preserved organ functions and (7) written informed consent. The endpoints were to evaluate the efficacy of granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage for docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients who previously had 'febrile neutropenia', or 'Grade 3 or 4 infection accompanied by grade 3 or 4 neutropenia' prophylactically received granulocyte colony stimulating factor support from day 7. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients were included in the analysis. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support was given to 81.3%. The incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were 81.3 and 32.9%, respectively. The dose of anticancer agents was reduced in 48.4%. There were no treatment-related deaths. The relative dose intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil were 92.7 ± 9.8%, 86.0 ± 15.6% and 91.8 ± 10.0%, respectively. In the secondary prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group, the neutrophil count significantly increased between day 7 and day 13 as compared with the non-prophylactic granulocyte colony stimulating factor support group (P < 0.05 for each day). CONCLUSIONS: Granulocyte colony stimulating factor support including secondary prophylactic usage may be feasible for maintaining the intensity of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Randomized study of prevention of gastrointestinal toxicities by nutritional support using an amino acid-rich elemental diet during chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer (KDOG 1101).

BACKGROUND: This randomized study was designed to evaluate the clinical effect of an elemental diet during chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, (2) stage IB-IV, (3) schedule to receive docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF chemotherapy), (4) 20-80 years old, (5) performance status of 0-2, (6) oral intake ability, and (7) written informed consent. Patients were divided into two groups: the elemental supplementary group and the non-supplementary group. Patients received ELENTAL® (160 g/day) orally 9 weeks after the start of chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of all adverse events and the evaluation of nutritional status. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients in the elemental supplementary group and 35 patients in the non-supplementary group were included in the analysis. The incidence of grade 2 or higher gastrointestinal toxicity and all grade 3 or 4 adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. In the elemental supplementary group, the body weight (p = 0.057), muscle mass (p = 0.056), and blood levels of transferrin (p = 0.009), total amino acids (p = 0.019), and essential amino acids (p = 0.006) tended to be maintained after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Nutritional support provided by an amino acid-rich elemental diet was ineffective for reducing the incidence of adverse events caused by DCF chemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer.

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC regimen, DEX sparing was not non-inferior in patients receiving cisplatin (CDDP)-based HEC regimens in subgroup analysis. Recently, the efficacy of the addition of olanzapine (OLZ) to standard triple antiemetic therapy on HEC has been demonstrated by several phase III trials. This study aims to confirm non-inferiority of DEX sparing when it is combined with NK-1RA, Palo and OLZ in patients receiving CDDP-based HEC regimens. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients who are scheduled to receive CDDP ≥50 mg/m2 as initial chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1-4 or DEX on day 1 combined with NK1-RA, Palo and OLZ (5 mg). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-CDDP administration). The non-inferiority margin is set at -15.0%. We assume that CR rates would be 75% in both arms. Two hundred and sixty-two patients are required for at least 80% power to confirm non-inferiority at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. After considering the possibility of attrition, we set our final required sample size of 280. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board approved the study protocol at each of the participating centres. The trial result will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

A retrospective study of treatment for curative synchronous double primary cancers of the head and neck and the esophagus.

OBJECTIVE: Curative synchronous double primary cancers of the head and neck and the esophagus (CSC-HE) are frequently detected, but a standard treatment remains to be established. We studied the clinical course to explore appropriate treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive 33 patients who had CSC-HE. The disease stage was classified into 4 groups: group A, early head and neck cancer (HNC) and early esophageal cancer (EC); group B, early HNC and advanced EC; group C, advanced HNC and early EC; and group D, advanced HNC and advanced EC. As induction chemotherapy, the patients received 3 courses of TPF therapy (docetaxel 75mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 75mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil 750mg/m2 on days 1-5) at 3-week intervals. The clinical courses and treatment outcomes were studied according to the disease stage of CSC-HE. RESULTS: The disease stage of CSC-HE was group A in 1 patient (3%), group B in 9 patients (27.3%), group C in 3 patients (9.1%), and group D in 20 patients (60.6%). The median follow-up was 26months, and the 2-year overall survival rate was 67.4%. In groups A, B, and C, the 2-year overall survival rate was 83.3%. In group D, the 2-year overall survival rate was 62.6%. Ten of 20 patients in group D received induction chemotherapy with TPF, and 6 patients were alive and disease free at the time of this writing. CONCLUSION: The treatment outcomes of patients with CSC-HE were relatively good. TPF induction chemotherapy might be an effective treatment for patients with advanced HNC and advanced EC.

Predisposing Factors for Chemotherapy-induced Nephrotoxicity in Patients with Advanced Esophageal Cancer Who Received Combination Chemotherapy with Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively studied the predisposing factors for nephrotoxicity in the patients with advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma who received combination chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF therapy). METHODS: Between January 2010 and March 2014, 41 patients with Stage IB to III esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma received the DCF therapy (docetaxel 70-75 mg/m2, day 1; cisplatin 70-75 mg/m2, day 1; 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m2, days 1-5) in our hospital. Renal dysfunction was defined as a creatinine clearance (Ccr) of less than 60 mL/min. Predictors of nephrotoxicity were identified through logistic-regression analysis. RESULTS: Nephrotoxicity developed in 20 patients and did not develop in 21 patients. Nephrotoxicity developed during the first course of DCF therapy in 16 patients, the second course in 3 patients, and the third course in 1 patient. The dose of DCF therapy was decreased in 8 patients with nephrotoxicity and 7 patients without nephrotoxicity. Multivariate analysis showed that a low Ccr level immediately before DCF therapy was an independent risk factor for the development of nephrotoxicity (odds ratio, 0.932; 95% confidence interval, 0.876 to 0.992; P = 0.027). On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cutoff value of Ccr for the development of nephrotoxicity was 75.8 mL/min. The 2-year overall survival rate was 84.2% in patients with nephrotoxicity and 90.0% in patients without nephrotoxicity (P = 0.635). CONCLUSIONS: Low Ccr levels immediately before DCF therapy are a risk factor for the development of nephrotoxicity. Patients should therefore be carefully monitored.

Prognostic Advantage of Docetaxel/Cisplatin/ 5-Fluorouracil Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Clinical Stage II/III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma due to Excellent Control of Preoperative Disease and Postoperative Lymph Node Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has become prevalent in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but its long-term prognostic advantages remain unclear. The latest prognostic outcomes in clinical Stage (cStage) II/III ESCC with NAC were herein elucidated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NAC prior to curative treatment was done in 115 cStage II/III ESCC patients with either cisplatin (CDDP)/5-fluorouracil (5-FU; CF) (n = 41) or docetaxel/CDDP/5-FU (DCF) NAC (n = 74) between 2007 and 2013. RESULTS: (1) Esophagectomy was finally performed in 35 of the 41 CF NAC cases and in 48 of the 74 DCF NAC cases. The preservation rate of the esophagus was higher in the DCF NAC than in the CF NAC (p = 0.018). (2) The overall survival was better in DCF NAC than in CF NAC (p = 0.071), and progression-free survivals were 58.3% with DCF and 30.5% with CF (p = 0.0060). DCF NAC was associated with fewer cases of progression than CF NAC (p = 0.0040), largely due to excellent control of the preoperative disease (p = 0.018) and postoperative lymph node recurrence (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: DCF NAC in cStage II/III ESCC could have a great potential to achieve a better prognosis due to suppression of specific progression events with a higher preservation rate of the esophagus.