A phase III trial comparing oral S-1/cisplatin and intravenous 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin in patients with untreated diffuse gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effect of histology-based treatment regimen on diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma has not been evaluated in clinical trials. This international phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1 (a contemporary oral fluoropyrimidine)/cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naïve patients with diffuse-type adenocarcinoma involving the gastroesophageal junction or stomach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included untreated, measurable, advanced diffuse adenocarcinoma confirmed by central pathology and performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomized (2 : 1) to receive S-1/cisplatin or 5-FU/cisplatin. Primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall response rate, and safety. A multivariable analysis was also carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 361 patients were randomized (S-1/cisplatin, n = 239; 5-FU/cisplatin, n = 122); half (51%) were men, and median age was 56.0 years. In each group, median number of treatment cycles per patient was 4 (range, S-1/cisplatin: 1-20; 5-FU/cisplatin: 1-30), and dose intensity was >95%. OS was not different in the two groups {median OS with S-1/cisplatin, 7.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7, 9.3]; 5-FU/cisplatin, 6.6 [95% CI: 5.7, 8.1] months; hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.76, 1.28]; P = 0.9312}. Overall response rate was significantly higher in the S-1/cisplatin than 5-FU/cisplatin group (34.7% versus 19.8%; P = 0.01), but progression-free survival and time to treatment failure were not different. Safety was similar between the 2 groups; however, fewer patients treated with S-1/cisplatin than 5-FU/cisplatin had ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event or ≥1 adverse event resulting in treatment discontinuation. One treatment-related death occurred in each group. Slow accrual led to early termination. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that S-1/cisplatin and 5-FU/cisplatin are similar in efficacy and safety in untreated patients with advanced diffuse adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction or stomach. The primary end point was not met. CLINICALTRIAL.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01285557.

A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1-4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue). RESULTS: Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing ≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0-120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC.