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.

RMAC study: A randomized study for evaluation of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgical resection in those who are ineligible for re-irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant re-chemoradiation after salvage surgery improves disease-free survival in recurrent head and neck cancer. However, most patients are ineligible for re-irradiation and are kept on observation. We investigated the efficacy of metronomic adjuvant chemotherapy (MAC) in this group of patients compared to observation. METHODS: This was a randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial. Adults with recurrent head and neck cancer, who had undergone salvage surgery, but were ineligible for adjuvant re-irradiation were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MAC arm or observation. MAC consisted of weekly oral methotrexate (at a dose of 15 mg per square meter of body surface area) and celecoxib (at a dose of 200 mg orally twice daily) for 6 months. The primary endpoint of phase 2 was disease-free survival (DFS) while that of phase 3 was overall survival (OS). For phase 2, to detect an improvement in the hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 with MAC, with a type 1 error of 10% (1-sided), type 2 error of 30%, 105 patients were required. While for phase 3, with a target HR of 0.77, with a type 1 error of 5%, type 2 error of 20%, 318 patients were required. Here we report the results of phase 2 part of the study. RESULTS: At a median follow up of 30.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 25.3 to 35.1) the 1 year and 2-year DFS were 57.4% (95% CI, 42.8-69.5) and 37.6% (95% CI, 24.1-51) in MAC arm whereas the corresponding numbers were 62.3% (95% CI, 47.8 to 73.8) and 54.2%(95% CI, 39.8 to 66.5) in observation arm, respectively (hazard ratio for progression, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.47; P = 0.15). In the MAC arm, the 1 and 2 year OS was 78.7% (95% CI, 64.9 to 87.6) and 48% (95% CI, 34.1 to 62).The corresponding figures in the observation arm were 79.2% (95% CI, 65.7 to 87.9) and 65.5% (95% CI, 50.9 to 76.7) (hazard ratio for death, 1.7, 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.08; P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The adjuvant 6-month metronomic schedule was ineffective in improving outcomes in recurrent head and neck cancers post salvage surgery who are ineligible for re-radiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registry of India (CTRI)- CTRI/2016/04/006872 [Registered on 26/4/2016].

Safety and efficacy of bevacizumab biosimilar in recurrent/ progressive glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple low-cost biosimilars of bevacizumab are now available but their clinical efficacy has never been compared against the original (innovator) molecule in glioblastoma. The aim of the current analysis is to compare the overall survival (OS) in recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients between the biosimilar and innovator molecules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients treated with bevacizumab from 1 July 2015 to 30 July 2019 were identified. These patients were either offered Bevacizumab innovator (Avastin, Roche) or biosimilar (BevaciRel: Reliance Life sciences or Bryxta: Zydus Oncosciences) depending upon the financial status and affordability of the patients. The primary endpoint of the study was OS, while progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events were the secondary endpoints. RESULTS: There were 82 patients, out of which 57 received innovator and 25 received biosimilar bevacizumab. At median follow-up of 26 months, the median PFS was 3.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08 to 5.25) and 3.3 months (95% CI 2.38 to 4.21) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.072). The hazard ratio (HR) for progression was 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.05; p-value = 0.075). At the time of data cut-off, the median OS was 5.53 (95% CI, 5.07 to 5.99) versus 7.33 months (95% CI, 5.63 to 9.03) in innovator and biosimilar group, respectively (Log-rank test p-value = 0.51). The HR for death was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.67 to 2.17; p-value = 0.51). The adverse events and safety profiles were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In the recurrent/progressive glioblastoma patients, both innovator and biosimilar bevacizumab seem to have similar safety and clinical efficacy.

Nimotuzumab-cisplatin-radiation versus cisplatin-radiation in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin and radiation improves outcomes in head and neck cancer. HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer has unsatisfactory treatment outcomes and is a candidate for escalation of treatment. We wanted to determine whether the addition of nimotuzumab to cisplatin-radiation could improve outcomes in these poor-risk tumors. METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a phase 3 randomized study. In this study, locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing definitive chemoradiation were randomly allocated to weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 IV)- radiation (66-70 Gy) {CRT arm} or nimotuzumab (200 mg weekly) -weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2)-radiation (66-70 Gy) {NCRT arm}. The data of HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer was extracted from the database of this study for the analysis. HPV testing was done with p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and reported according to the CAP criteria. The outcomes assessed were progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control, and overall survival (OS). Interaction test was performed between the study arms and HPV status prior to doing any HPV specific analysis for each of the studied outcomes. Kaplan Meier estimates for 2 year OS with 95%CI was calculated. The hazard ratio was obtained using COX regression analysis. RESULTS: We had 187 HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers, 91 in the CRT arm and 96 in NCRT arm. The interaction test was significant for PFS (p = 0.000), locoregional control (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.002) but not for DFS (p = 0.072). The 2- year PFS was 31.5% (95%CI 21.5-42) in CRT arm versus 57.2% (95%CI 45.8-67.1) in NCRT arm (HR -0.54; 95%CI 0.36-0.79, p = 0.002). The 2-year LRC was 41.4% (95%CI 29.8-52.6) in the CRT arm versus in 60.4% (95%CI 48.7-70.2) in the NCRT arm (HR -0.61; 95%CI 0.4-0.94, p = 0.024). The addition of nimotuzumab also lead to an improvement in 2-year OS from 39.0% (95%CI 28.4-49.6) to 57.6% (95%CI 46.3-67.4) (HR-0.63, 95%CI 0.43-0.92, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to weekly cisplatin-radiation improves outcomes inclusive of OS in HPV negative oropharyngeal cancers.

Chemoradiation in Unresectable Oral Cavity Cancer: A Myth or Reality!

Objective Earlier studies have shown that chemoradiation (CTRT) has benefits in the head-and-neck cancer, but how far it is true for oral cavity subset that has not been exactly explored. Keeping the null hypothesis as CTRT has no benefit in oral cavity cancer, we studied the outcome of patients undergoing chemoradiation in unresectable oral cavity cancers. The aim of this study is to study whether overall survival (OS) increases with chemoradiation in unresectable oral cavity cancers. Patients and Methods Between December 2014 and February 2017, 23 patients aged 18 years and above were planned chemoradiation for unresectable oral cavity cancer and were included for this analysis. Results The median age of patients was 43 years and all patients were addicted to tobacco. In total, 12 of 23 (52%) completed CTRT. One patient (1/23) was alive at the time of final analysis with median OS of 5.83 (2.73-9.60) months. The median progression free survival and OS in patients who completed chemoradiation were 6.42 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.67-10.53) and 8.9 months (95% CI: 4.4-23.07), respectively. Conclusion CTRT has a limited role in unresectable oral cancers.

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.

A randomized phase 3 trial comparing nimotuzumab plus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy versus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy alone in locally advanced head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Because the addition of nimotuzumab to chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer improved outcomes in a phase 2 study, the authors conducted a phase 3 study to confirm these findings. METHODS: This open-label, investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomized trial was conducted from 2012 to 2018. Adult patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who were fit for radical chemoradiation were randomized 1:1 to receive either radical radiotherapy (66-70 grays) with concurrent weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2 ) (CRT) or the same schedule of CRT with weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg) (NCRT).The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); key secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), duration of locoregional control (LRC), and overall survival (OS). An intent-to-treat analysis also was performed. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients were allocated equally to both treatment arms. The median follow-up was 39.13 months. The addition of nimotuzumab improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89; P = .004), LRC (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89; P = .006), and DFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = .008) and had a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08; P = .163). Grade 3 through 5 adverse events were similar between the 2 arms, except for a higher incidence of mucositis in the NCRT arm (66.7% vs 55.8%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of nimotuzumab to concurrent weekly CRT improves PFS, LRC, and DFS. This combination provides a novel alternative therapeutic option to a 3-weekly schedule of 100 mg/m2 cisplatin in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer who are treated with radical-intent CRT.

Phase III Non-inferiority Study Evaluating Efficacy and Safety of Low Dose Gemcitabine Compared to Standard Dose Gemcitabine With Platinum in Advanced Squamous Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged infusion of low dose gemcitabine (PLDG) in combination with platinum has shown promising activity in terms of improved response rate and progression free survival (PFS); especially in squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Hence, we conducted a phase 3 randomized non-inferiority study with the primary objective of comparing the overall survival (OS) between PLDG and standard dose of gemcitabine with platinum. METHODOLOGY: Adult subjects (age ≥ 18 years), with stages IIIB-IV, NSCLC (squamous) and ECOG performance status of ≤ 2 were randomized 1:1 into either carboplatin with standard dose gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenous over 30 min, days 1 and 8) (STD-G arm) or carboplatin along with low dose gemcitabine (250 mg/m2 intravenous over 6 h, days 1 and 8) (LOW-G arm) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Tumor response was assessed by RECIST criteria version 1.1 every 2 cycles till 6th cycle and thereafter at 2 monthly intervals till progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival. 308 patients were randomized, 155 in STD-G arm and 153 in LOW-G arm, respectively. RESULTS: The median overall survival in STD-G arm was 6.8 months (95%CI 5.3-8.5) versus 8.4 months (95%CI 7-10.3) in the LOW-G arm (HR-0.890 (90%CI 0.725-1.092). The results with per protocol analysis were in line with these results. There was no statistical difference in progression free survival (HR-0.949; 90%CI 0.867-1.280) and adverse event rate between the 2 arms. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that PLDG is an alternative to the standard gemcitabine schedule in squamous NSCLC, and either of these can be selected subject to patient convenience.

Shadow study: randomized comparison of clinic with video follow-up in glioma undergoing adjuvant temozolomide therapy.

AIM: This study was designed with a primary objective to study the rate of agreement in treatment plan and decisions between video follow-up (VF) and conventional clinic follow-up (CF). PATIENTS & METHODS: Adult patients with intermediate- to high-grade glioma on adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) with facilities for live video call were invited to participate in the study. RESULTS: The concurrence in decision of administering TMZ between VF and CF was 100% (p < 0.00). The median cost incurred in VF was US$58.15 while that incurred in CF was US$131.23 (p < 0.00). CONCLUSION: VF can substitute CF during adjuvant TMZ administration (CTRI/2017/01/007626).

Results of a phase II randomized controlled clinical trial comparing efficacy of Cabazitaxel versus Docetaxel as second line or above therapy in recurrent head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel has shown activity in squamous cancer cell lines and in taxane resistant cell lines. Hence we planned a phase 2 study to evaluate the efficacy of cabazitaxel against Docetaxel in recurrent head and neck cancer, post first line treatment. METHODS: This was a phase 2, investigator initiated, randomized controlled trial of Docetaxel (75 mg/m2) versus Cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2), in patients with head and neck cancer with ECOG performance status 0-2 who have been exposed to at least one line of chemotherapy, involving a sample size of 92 (46 per group)(CTRI/2015/06/005848). Disease control rate at 6 weeks was assessed and compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: The disease control rate at 6 weeks was better in the Docetaxel arm over the cabazitaxel arm (52.3% versus 13.6%, p = 0.017). The median progression free survival was 21 days (95% CI 5.28 to 36.72 days) in the cabazitaxel arm versus 61 days (95% CI 21.39 to 100.60 days) in the Docetaxel arm (HR-1.455, 95% CI 0.919-2.304, p = 0.100). The median overall survival was 115 days (95% CI 74.04 to 155.95 days) in the cabazitaxel arm versus 155 days (95% CI 148.6 to 161.40 days) in the Docetaxel arm (HR-1.464, 95% CI 0.849-2.523, p = 0.170). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel had a superior disease control rate at 6 weeks compared to cabazitaxel.