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.

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.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with temozolomide: an audit from a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: In our previous experience, a significant proportion of patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist monotherapy with adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2) had chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is an audit comparing the multiple antiemetic therapies in the prevention of temozolomide-associated CINV. METHODS: This was a retrospective audit. Adult glioma patients treated with temozolomide at a dose of 150-200 mg/m2 between October 2017 and June 2018 were selected for this analysis. Three antiemetic prophylaxis were used in this time period: ondansetron (October 2017 to November 2017), ondansetron + domperidone (December 2017 to February 2018), and ondansetron + olanzapine (March 2018 to June 2018). The rates of nausea and vomiting were compared among the 3 cohorts using the chi-squared test with Bonferroni correction. A P value of less than .016 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were selected for this analysis. There were 91 patients in the ondansetron prophylaxis group (25.3%), 113 (31.4%) in the ondansetron plus domperidone group, and 156 (43.3%) in the ondansetron plus olanzapine group. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 25.0% (n = 90) and 7.2% (n = 26). Overall the rates of nausea (P = .052) and vomiting (P = .481) were similar in all 3 cohorts. However, the rates of grade 2 and above nausea (P = .012) and vomiting (P = .015) were significantly lower in the olanzapine group. CONCLUSION: The combination of ondansetron with olanzapine leads to a statistically significant decrease in the rate of moderate-to-severe emesis and nausea and needs to be explored in a prospective study.