Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651.

PURPOSE: CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS: Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS ≥ 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS ≥ 20 populations. RESULTS: Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS ≥ 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .0469) populations. In patients with CPS ≥ 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS ≥ 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS ≥ 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN.

Impact of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Esophageal Cancer on Health-Related Quality of Life in KEYNOTE-181.

PURPOSE: In the phase III KEYNOTE-181 study (NCT02564263) of patients with advanced esophageal cancer (EC), pembrolizumab monotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. We present the results of the prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) analyses of the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ EC questionnaire (OES18), and EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Data were analyzed in patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥ 1 HRQoL assessment. Key analyses included baseline to week 9 least squares mean change in global health status/quality of life, functional or symptom subscales, and time to deterioration (≥ 10-point deterioration) for specific subscales. RESULTS: The HRQoL population included 387 patients with SCC. Compliance and completion rates for all three questionnaires were similar in both treatment groups at baseline and week 9. No clinically meaningful differences in global health status/quality of life scores were observed between treatment groups from baseline to week 9 (least squares mean difference, 2.80; 95% CI, -1.48 to 7.08); patients in both treatment groups generally exhibited stable functioning and symptom scores of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 from baseline to week 9. Time to deterioration for pain (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.89), reflux (HR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.33 to 4.25), and dysphagia (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.31) subscales were similar between treatment groups. These findings were generally similar in the CPS ≥ 10 (n = 218) and CPS ≥ 10 SCC (n = 166) subgroups. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced EC, pembrolizumab monotherapy and chemotherapy maintained HRQoL in patients with SCC, CPS ≥ 10, and CPS ≥ 10 SCC.

Sotorasib for previously treated colorectal cancers with KRASG12C mutation (CodeBreaK100): a prespecified analysis of a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sotorasib, a specific, irreversible KRASG12C protein inhibitor, has shown monotherapy clinical activity in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours, including colorectal cancer, in the CodeBreaK100 phase 1 trial. We aimed to investigate the activity and safety of sotorasib in phase 2 of the trial. METHODS: In this single-arm, phase 2 trial, adult patients with KRASG12C-mutated advanced solid tumours were enrolled, from 59 medical centres in 11 countries, if they were aged 18 years or older, had at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower. Only data for patients with colorectal cancer, enrolled at 33 medical centres in nine countries, are presented from this basket trial. To be enrolled, the patients had to have progressed after receiving fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan treatment. These patients were administered 960 mg sotorasib orally once per day until disease progression, development of unacceptable side-effects, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was objective response (complete or partial response) as assessed by blinded independent central review. Response was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of sotorasib and had at least one measurable lesion at baseline; safety was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of sotorasib. This analysis is a prespecified analysis triggered by the phase 2 colorectal cancer cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600883, and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: On March 1, 2021, at data cutoff, 62 patients with KRASG12C-mutant colorectal cancer had been enrolled between Aug 14, 2019, and May 21, 2020, and had received at least one dose of sotorasib monotherapy. Objective response was observed in six (9·7%, 95% CI 3·6-19·9) of 62 patients, all with partial response. Treatment-related adverse events at grade 3 occurred in six (10%) patients, the most common of which was diarrhoea (two [3%] of 62 patients), and at grade 4 occurred in one (2%) patient (blood creatine phosphokinase increase); no fatal events were recorded. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients (back pain and acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: Although the 9·7% overall response rate did not reach the benchmark, oral administration of sotorasib once per day showed modest anti-tumour activity and manageable safety in these heavily pretreated chemorefractory patients. Sotorasib is under evaluation in combination with other therapeutics to increase potential activity and overcome potential resistance mechanisms. FUNDING: Amgen.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies and results of a phase 2 trial of abiraterone and olaparib suggest a combined antitumor effect when the poly(adenosine diphosphate[ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib is combined with next-generation hormonal agent abiraterone to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, phase 3 trial of abiraterone and olaparib versus abiraterone and placebo in patients with mCRPC in the first-line setting. Patients were enrolled regardless of homologous recombination repair gene mutation (HRRm) status. HRRm status was determined following enrollment by tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA tests. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival (ibPFS) by investigator assessment. Overall survival was among the secondary end points. RESULTS: At this planned primary analysis at the first data cutoff, median ibPFS was significantly longer in the abiraterone and olaparib arm than in the abiraterone and placebo arm (24.8 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.81; P<0.001) and was consistent with blinded independent central review (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74). At this data cutoff, overall survival data were immature (28.6% maturity; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.12; P=0.29). The safety profile of olaparib and abiraterone was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual drugs. The most common adverse events in the abiraterone and olaparib arm were anemia, fatigue/asthenia, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: At primary analysis at this first data cutoff, abiraterone combined with olaparib significantly prolonged ibPFS compared with abiraterone and placebo as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC enrolled irrespective of HRRm status. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03732820.)

Tumor Response and Symptom Palliation from RAINBOW, a Phase III Trial of Ramucirumab Plus Paclitaxel in Previously Treated Advanced Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of the RAINBOW study, objective response rate (ORR) was 28% and 16% in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively. To further characterize tumor response, we present details on timing and extent of tumor shrinkage, as well as associations with symptom palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tumor response was assessed with RECIST v1.1, and quality of life (QoL) was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3.0. Prespecified and post hoc analyses were conducted in the ITT population, patients with measurable disease, or responders, and included best overall response (BOR), ORR, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, time to response (TtR), change in tumor size, and associations of QoL with tumor shrinkage and BOR. RESULTS: In both treatment arms, median TtR was 1.5 months. Responses were more durable in the ramucirumab versus control arm (median 4.4 vs. 2.8 months). In patients with measurable disease (78% of ITT), ORR was 36% versus 20%; DCR was 81% versus 61% in the ramucirumab versus control arms. Waterfall plots demonstrated more tumor shrinkage in the ramucirumab versus control arm. Regardless of treatment, tumor response and stable disease were associated with improved or stable QoL, with more tumor shrinkage associated with greater symptom palliation. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel yielded the highest ORR reported to date for patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Additional details demonstrate robustness of tumor response results. The extent of tumor shrinkage is directly associated with symptom palliation and should be considered when evaluating patient needs and treatment selection. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01170663. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel is a recognized standard of care as it improves survival for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who have been previously treated with recommended first-line therapy. These additional data on tumor response demonstrate a positive association between tumor shrinkage and symptom palliation in a patient population that is often symptomatic. These observations included patients with nonmeasurable disease, a group of patients often underrepresented in clinical trials. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, which align individual patient characteristics and needs with demonstrated benefits.

Randomized Phase III KEYNOTE-181 Study of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options after first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, phase III study, we randomly assigned (1:1) 628 patients with advanced/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, that progressed after one prior therapy, to pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years or chemotherapy (investigator's choice of paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, and in all patients (one-sided α 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.8%, respectively). RESULTS: At final analysis, conducted 16 months after the last patient was randomly assigned, OS was prolonged with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with CPS ≥ 10 (median, 9.3 v 6.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.93]; P = .0074). Estimated 12-month OS rate was 43% (95% CI, 33.5% to 52.1%) with pembrolizumab versus 20% (95% CI, 13.5% to 28.3%) with chemotherapy. Median OS was 8.2 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96]; P = .0095) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma and 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.05]; P = .0560) in all patients. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 18.2% of patients with pembrolizumab versus 40.9% in those who underwent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, with fewer treatment-related adverse events.

A randomised phase II study of chemoradiotherapy with or without nimotuzumab in locally advanced oesophageal cancer: NICE trial.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with inoperable locally advanced oesophageal cancer. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of chemoradiation combined with nimotuzumab, a humanised antibody directed against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with inoperable locally advanced oesophageal cancer and no distant metastases were randomised to chemoradiotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil combined with external beam radiation) alone or in combination with nimotuzumab. The primary end-point was the endoscopic complete response (eCR) rate, and secondary end-points comprised quality of life (QoL) and safety. The combined eCR and pathologic complete response (cEPCR) and overall survival (OS) were also evaluated. RESULTS: We enrolled 107 patients with a mean age of 59 years, and 93% had squamous cell carcinoma. Toxicity was manageable in both arms with no important differences in adverse events (AEs). We performed post-treatment endoscopies in 67 patients, including 60 who had a biopsy. In the intent-to-treat population, the eCR rates with and without nimotuzumab were 47.2% and 33.3% (P = 0.17), respectively, and the cEPCR rates were 62.3% and 37.0% (P = 0.02), respectively. With a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-1.07; P = 0.09) with a median OS of 15.9 months for the nimotuzumab arm and 11.5 months for the control arm. Regarding QoL, a significant difference was observed for the physical subscale score (P = 0.03) with lower values for the control arm. CONCLUSION: Combined chemoradiotherapy plus nimotuzumab is safe for patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer, it appears to increase the cEPCR rate, and without compromising QoL. CLINICAL TRIALS: Identification number: EF024-201; Trial registry: NCT01249352.

Guidelines for the management of neuroendocrine tumours by the Brazilian gastrointestinal tumour group.

Neuroendocrine tumours are a heterogeneous group of diseases with a significant variety of diagnostic tests and treatment modalities. Guidelines were developed by North American and European groups to recommend their best management. However, local particularities and relativisms found worldwide led us to create Brazilian guidelines. Our consensus considered the best feasible strategies in an environment involving more limited resources. We believe that our recommendations may be extended to other countries with similar economic standards.

Sarcoma de Kaposi: novas perspectivas / Kaposi's sarcoma: news perspectives

O sarcoma de Kaposi (SK) é a neoplasia mais freqüente no paciente infectado pelo vírus da imunodeficiência humana (HIV). Progressivamente tal entidade tem se tornado cada vez menos comum, sobretudo após o início da utilização da chamada terapia anti-retroviral altamente ativa (HAART), principal responsável pela redução da incidência e pelas mudanças apresentadas na evolução natural desta neoplasia

Meningite bacteriana aguda: revisão da literatura / Acute bacterial meningitis: literature review

Meningite bacteriana aguda (MBA) constitui o grupo mais freqüente de infecções do sistema nervoso central (SNC). É uma situação de grande importância epidemiológica, social e econômica relacionada à alta morbiletalidade e possibilidade de acometimento de qualquer faixa etária. No presente artigo os autores discutem a clínica, o diagnóstico e o tratamento da meningite bacteriana aguda

Atualidade na Terapeutica do Sarcoma de Kaposi / Kaposi's Sarcoma Therapy: Un Update

O Sarcoma de Kaposi (SK) e a neoplasia mais frequente no paciente infectado pelo virus da imunodeficiencia humana (HIV). Progressivamente tal entidade tem se tornado cada vez menos comum, sobretudo apos o inicio da utilizacao da chamada Terapia Anti-Retroviral Altamente Ativa (HAART), principal responsavel pela reducao da incidencia e pelas mudancas apresentadas na evolucao natural desta neoplasia. No presente artigo e feita uma breve revisao dos aspectos terapeuticos atuais do sarcoma de Kaposi