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.

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma: an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1-3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings. METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18-70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m2 methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6-12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615-0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7-12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4-9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616-0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01). INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible. FUNDING: Tata Memorial Center Research Administration Council. TRANSLATIONS: For the Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Oriya, Bengali, and Punjabi translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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.