Pembrolizumab Plus Ipilimumab or Placebo for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50%: Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III KEYNOTE-598 Study.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab monotherapy is standard first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% without actionable driver mutations. It is not known whether adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab improves efficacy over pembrolizumab alone in this population. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-598 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03302234), eligible patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK aberrations were randomly allocated 1:1 to ipilimumab 1 mg/kg or placebo every 6 weeks for up to 18 doses; all participants received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 doses. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 568 participants, 284 were randomly allocated to each group. Median overall survival was 21.4 months for pembrolizumab-ipilimumab versus 21.9 months for pembrolizumab-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.37; P = .74). Median progression-free survival was 8.2 months for pembrolizumab-ipilimumab versus 8.4 months for pembrolizumab-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.30; P = .72). Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 62.4% of pembrolizumab-ipilimumab recipients versus 50.2% of pembrolizumab-placebo recipients and led to death in 13.1% versus 7.5%. The external data and safety monitoring committee recommended that the study be stopped for futility and that participants discontinue ipilimumab and placebo. CONCLUSION: Adding ipilimumab to pembrolizumab does not improve efficacy and is associated with greater toxicity than pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% and no targetable EGFR or ALK aberrations. These data do not support use of pembrolizumab-ipilimumab in place of pembrolizumab monotherapy in this population.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aprepitant versus two dosages of olanzapine with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.

Efficacy of ginger for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving adriamycin-cyclophosphamide regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of ginger for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in breast cancer patients receiving adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens. METHODS: We enrolled breast cancer patients receiving AC who experienced moderate to severe nausea or vomiting during the first chemotherapy cycle. Subjects were randomized to receive a 500-mg ginger capsule or placebo twice a day for 5 days starting on the first day of the second AC cycle and were switched to the other treatment in the third cycle. All participants also received ondansetron and dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis. Nausea severity was recorded once a day during the first 5 days of each cycle. The primary outcome was reduction in nausea score. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects (68 cycles of AC) were enrolled. Mean (range) maximum nausea score in the first AC cycle was 58 (40-90). Thirty-three subjects (97 %) received the same AC doses in the second as in the third cycle. Mean (±standard error) maximum nausea scores in patients receiving ginger and placebo were 35.36 (±4.43) and 32.17 (±3.71), respectively. The difference in mean maximum nausea scores was 3 (95 % confidence interval, -3 to 9; P = 0.3). There were no significant differences between ginger and placebo in terms of vomiting incidence and severity, rescue medication use, chemotherapy compliance, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ginger (500 mg) twice daily was safe, but conferred no additional benefit in terms of reducing nausea severity in breast cancer patients receiving AC and ondansetron and dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis.

A phase II study of the combination of gemcitabine plus carboplatin as the neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Although anthracycline-based regimen is standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), there is some concern over its toxicities such as alopecia and cardiotoxicity. Gemcitabine is another active agent in metastatic breast cancer after failure to anthracycline with less toxicity. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine and carboplatin as NAC in LABC. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients with histologically confirmed LABC (T3, T4 or N2 and M0) were included. Patients were scheduled to receive 3 cycles of neoadjuvant GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 D1, D8 and carboplatin AUC x 5 D1) every 21 days. Patients with clinical response underwent surgery and additional 3 cycles of adjuvant GC. Primary endpoint was clinical response rate whereas secondary endpoints included pathological response, DFS, OS and toxicity. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2007, 40 LABC patients were enrolled. Of 40 patients, 35 were evaluable for efficacy and 40 for toxicity. Twenty-three out of 35 patients (65%) obtained cPR. Among 22 patients who had clinical response and who underwent surgery, overall pathological response rate was 51.5% with 1-pCR (2.9%) and 17-pPR (48.5%). All 7 triple-negative patients had pathological response (1-pCR, 6-pPR). At median follow-up of 59 months, median DFS and OS were not reached. Five-year OS and DFS were 67% and 62%, respectively Major adverse effect was myelosuppression without fatal complications. CONCLUSION: The combination GC was feasible and well-tolerated for LABC in neoadjuvant setting. Triple-negative subgroup seems to have high response to GC.

C-reactive protein as a monitor of chemotherapy response in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CML study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate the correlation between the change of serum c-reactive protein (CRP) levels and response to chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who received the first line chemotherapy were measured serum CRP levels prior to treatment. Chemotherapy regimen was given to patients according to physicians and radiologic imaging was evaluated after two or three cycles of treatment. Serum CRP levels were measured first time at pre-treatment and second time in patients who had pre-treatment serum CRP levels greater than normal range (3 mg/l) at the time of response assessment or clinical progression. The primary endpoint was the correlation between change of serum CRP levels and radiologic response. The secondary endpoint was the prevalence of elevated CRP levels in advanced NSCLC patients and correlation between initial CRP levels and progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Fifty four patients were enrolled. Prevalence of elevated CRP levels in advanced NSCLC was 76%. Thirty patients had serial serum CRP measured. There was correlation between change in serum CRP levels and response to treatment (r = 0.43, p = 0.018, spearman rank). There was significant correlation between response to treatment and decrease in CRP levels greater than 50% (p = 0.009, Fisher's exact test). In contrast there was no correlation between progression and increase in CRP levels (p = 0.640, Fisher's exact test). All patients with serial CRP levels decreased to normal range (< 3 mg/ l) had response to chemotherapy. High pre-treatment CRP levels (> 100 mg/l) correlated with poor PFS. Median PFS for patients with pre-treatment CRP levels of 3-30 mg/l, 30-100 mg/l and >100 mg/l was 23.0 weeks, 13.0 weeks and 6.3 weeks, respectively. Patients with serial CRP levels less than 3 mg/l had greater PFS than patients with serial CRP levels higher than 3 mg/l (p = 0.026, log rank test). CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that high levels of pre-treatment serum CRP and persistent CRP in serum was a poor prognostic factor. The decrease in CRP levels greater than 50% was a simple method to predict the response to treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small lung cancer.

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with or without metoclopramide as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin in medical practice.

PURPOSES: Ondansetron plus dexamethasone are standard antiemetic agents for highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Metoclopramide is a dopamine antagonist, which may enhance efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of metoclopramide added to standard antiemetic regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. METHODS: Patients who received ≥50 mg/m(2) of cisplatin for the first time were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 and were randomized to receive either standard antiemetics (ondansetron 8 mg orally bid on days 2-5 and dexamethasone 8 mg orally bid on days 2-4) plus metoclopramide 20 mg orally qid on days 2-5 or a placebo. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR) rate defined as no emesis and no rescue treatment over a 120-h period. Secondary endpoints included severity of nausea and vomiting, time to first emesis, quality of life, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Among 162 patients, 50 patients (60%) in the metoclopramide group and 42 patients (53%) in the control group achieved CR (p = 0.36). The mean times to first emesis in the metoclopramide and control groups were 88 and 75 h, respectively (p = 0.18). The degrees of nausea and vomiting in both groups were similar. Eleven patients (13%) in the metoclopramide group and 20 (25%) in the control group required rescue treatment (p = 0.05). Quality of life and adverse effects were not different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of metoclopramide to ondansetron plus dexamethasone reduced the use of rescue medication, but did not affect complete response rate, quality of life or adverse effects.