Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in Asian patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 3): an open-label, randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) following progression after first-line platinum-based therapy, particularly in Asian countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase III trial, we enrolled Asian patients aged ≥18 years, with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent/metastatic HNSCC following first-line platinum-based therapy who were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1. Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2/week), stratified by ECOG performance status and prior EGFR-targeted antibody therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent central review committee blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS: A total of 340 patients were randomised (228 afatinib; 112 methotrexate). After a median follow-up of 6.4 months, afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression/death by 37% versus methotrexate (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.82; P = 0.0005; median 2.9 versus 2.6 months; landmark analysis at 12 and 24 weeks, 58% versus 41%, 21% versus 9%). Improved PFS was complemented by quality of life benefits. Objective response rate was 28% with afatinib and 13% with methotrexate. There was no significant difference in overall survival. The most common grade ≥3 drug-related adverse events were rash/acne (4% with afatinib versus 0% with methotrexate), diarrhoea (4% versus 0%), fatigue (1% versus 5%), anaemia (<1% versus 5%) and leukopenia (0% versus 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS versus methotrexate, with a manageable safety profile. These results demonstrate the efficacy and feasibility of afatinib as a second-line treatment option for certain patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01856478.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy of single-dose NEPA, a fixed antiemetic combination of netupitant and palonosetron, versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Background: Co-administration of multiple antiemetics that inhibit several molecular pathways involved in emesis is required to optimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). NEPA, a fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist, netupitant (300 mg), and the pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, palonosetron (PALO 0.50 mg), has shown superior CINV prevention compared with PALO in cisplatin and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based settings. This study is the first head-to-head comparison of NEPA versus an aprepitant (APR)/granisetron (GRAN) regimen. Patients and methods: This randomized, double-blind phase III study conducted in Asia was designed with the primary objective to demonstrate non-inferiority of a single oral dose of NEPA compared with a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the non-inferiority margin set at - 10%. Secondary efficacy endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN). Results: Treatment groups were comparable for the 828 patients analyzed: predominantly male (71%); mean age 54.5 years; ECOG 0-1 (98%); lung cancer (58%). NEPA demonstrated non-inferiority to APR/GRAN for overall CR [NEPA 73.8% versus APR/GRAN 72.4%, 95% CI (-4.5%, 7.5%)]. No emesis [NEPA 75.0% versus APR/GRAN 74.0%, 95% CI (-4.8%, 6.9%)] and NSN rates [NEPA 75.7% versus APR/GRAN 70.4%, 95% CI (-0.6%, 11.4%)] were similar between groups, but significantly more NEPA patients did not take rescue medication [NEPA 96.6% versus APR/GRAN 93.5%, 95% CI (0.2%, 6.1%)]. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to APR/GRAN. Conclusions: In this first study comparing NK1RA regimens and DEX, NEPA administered only on day 1 was non-inferior to a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen in preventing CINV associated with HEC.

Genitourinary small-cell carcinoma: a single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Small-cell carcinomas (sccs) of the genitourinary (gu) tract are rare systemic diseases, and there is no standard treatment strategy for patients with this malignancy. The objectives of the present study were to report the management and outcome of patients with scc of the gu tract treated at a tertiary-care institution from 1982 to 2009. METHODS: In a chart review of all patients diagnosed with scc of the gu tract between 1982 and 2009, data on demographics, clinical and pathologic characteristics, treatment, and patient outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The 58 patients identified had scc in the following primary sites: urinary bladder (n = 35), prostate (n = 17), and upper urinary tract (n = 6). In 38 patients (66%), the scc was of pure histology; in the remainder, histology was mixed. Overall, 28 patients had limited-stage disease; 24 had extensive-stage disease; and staging was unknown in 6 patients. Median survival for the entire cohort was 7.5 months, with extensive-stage disease being identified as a poor prognostic factor (survival was 22.0 months for limited-stage patients and 4.1 months for extensive-stage patients, p < 0.001). Based on site, prostate patients fared worst, with a median survival of only 5.1 months. Compared with best supportive care, treatment was associated with better outcomes (median survival: 12.3 months vs. 2.3 months, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Small-cell cancer of the gu tract is an aggressive cancer, with a poor prognosis overall. Although there is no standard of care, patients should be treated using a multimodality approach analogous to that used in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer.

Clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes of patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinoma: a single-institution experience.

UNLABELLED: Most patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (gej) cancer are diagnosed with inoperable advanced or metastatic disease. In these cases, chemotherapy is the only treatment demonstrating survival benefit. The present study compares clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes for patients with advanced esophageal, gej, and gastric adenocarcinoma treated with first-line chemotherapy [epirubicin-cisplatin-5-fluorouracil (ecf), epirubicin-cisplatin-capecitabine (ecx), or etoposide-leucovorin-5-fluorouracil (elf)] or best supportive care (bsc) at our institution with those for historical controls. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical information for 401 patients with newly diagnosed advanced esophageal, gej, or gastric adenocarcinoma treated with first-line chemotherapy (ecf, ecx, or elf) or bsc from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2010. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the data collected with data for historical control patients. RESULTS: Of the study patients, 93% were diagnosed with metastatic disease (n = 374), and 63% received bsc only (n = 251). The main reasons that patients received bsc only included poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (55%), patient decision (31%), and comorbidities (14%). Of the remaining patients, 98 (24%) received ecf or ecx and 52 (13%) received elf as first-line treatment. Median overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with ecf or ecx or with elf than in those receiving bsc (12.7 months vs. 12.7 months vs. 5.5 months respectively). Chemotherapy also significantly reduced the risk of death (64% reduction with ecf or ecx, 58% with elf). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the substantial overall survival benefit of combination chemotherapy compared with bsc, with better survival in our patient population than in historical controls. However, novel treatment options are still warranted to improve outcomes in this patient population.