Search

Purpose The IDEAL-CRT phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks’ duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule. Methods and Materials Patients received isotoxically individualized tumor radiation doses of 63 to 71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63 to 73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with 2 cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules. Results One-hundred twenty patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with 2 considered radiation therapy related. After median follow-up of 51.8 and 26.4 months for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months, respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98; P = .04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P = .05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = .01). Conclusions Toxicity in IDEAL-CRT was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments.

Aims This open-label prospective phase I/II dose-escalation study determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and then evaluated response, safety and feasibility of a novel combination of docetaxel, cisplatinum and capecitabine (DCC) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced oesophago-gastric carcinoma. Materials and methods Patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus or stomach, of good performance status, deemed too advanced for curative treatment, were given systematically increasing doses of 3 weekly DCC to ascertain the MTD. Phase II administered up to six cycles of DCC at the MTD, assessing response and toxicity. Results Between November 2007 and November 2012, 15 patients were recruited into phase I and 41 into phase II. The MDT was a 21 day cycle of docetaxel 60 mg/m2 IV day 1, cisplatinum 60 mg/m2 IV day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 daily in two divided doses for days 1–21. The most common phase II grade 3–4 toxicities were neutropenia 88% (10% febrile neutropenia), fatigue 15%, sensory neuropathy 10% and non-neutropenic infection 10%. The overall response rate was 51%, median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (confidence interval 6.7–9.4) and median overall survival was 10.9 months (confidence interval 7.7–13.7). Conclusion DCC was tolerable and feasible with promising efficacy, and may be suitable for future investigation in both first-line metastatic and neoadjuvant settings.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Purpose To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined. Results Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years. Conclusions IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.

Summary Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 , 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m 2 orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2–4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. Findings The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4–12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1–8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4–7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97–1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3–9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85–1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ 2 2df =4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3–4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). Interpretation Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. Funding Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

Summary Background Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. Methods For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0–2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. Findings Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23–4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97–4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference −8·61, 95% CI −14·49 to −2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI −2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (−3·18, 95% CI −8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (−4·11, 95% CI −9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23–1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07–1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66–0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3–4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). Interpretation The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. Funding Cancer Research UK.

TPS8111 Background: Outcomes remain poor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) of squamous origin. There are few established therapeutic targets, and benefits of chemotherapy are freq...

4121 Background: The TeloVac trial randomized 1,062 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer to a control chemotherapy Arm1, using GemCap; sequential chemoimmunotherapy Arm 2, GemCap for 8 wks foll...

4016 Background: The Cancer Oesophagus Gefitinib (COG) trial randomised (1:1) 450 patients(pts) with advanced EC who had progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy to gefitinib (G) or placebo (P). ...

6 Background: There are no randomised trials of 2nd line chemotherapy for esophageal cancer. The phase III COG trial of gefitinib versus placebo in patients with esophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy did not show significant overall survival (OS) benefit, however the trial incorporated patient reported outcomes (PRO) using validated tools. The PRO data are therefore critical to inform practice and the initial results are presented here. Methods: Adults with measurable/evaluable metastatic esophageal or types I/II junctional adeno or squamous cell carcinoma progressing after prior chemotherapy, with performance status 0-2 were randomised 1:1 to 500mg gefitinib (G) or placebo (P), treated until progression. Primary outcome: OS. Secondary outcomes include safety, PFS, PRO (assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 at baseline 4, 8 and 12 weeks until progression) and predictive biomarkers. Pre-specified PRO domains were global quality of life, dysphagia, eating and odynophagia. Analysis by ANCOVA of change in PRO at 4 weeks adjusted for baseline. Results: 450 patients were recruited from 51 UK centres and no difference in OS was detected. There was evidence that PFS was better in the intervention arm (P 35 days, G 49 days; HR=0.795, 95%CI 0.66, 0.96, p=0.017). Questionnaire compliance rates were excellent at baseline (94%) and at 4 weeks (77%). Patients in the gefitinib arm reported significantly better social function (9.26; 95%CI 1.94 to 16.58; p=0.013) and significantly fewer problems with odynophagia (-8.61; 95%CI -14.49 to -2.73; p=0.004), constipation (-15.24; 95%CI -22.83 to -7.65; p=0.0001) and speech (-10.40; 95%CI -16.13 to -4.67; p=0.0004) than patients receiving placebo but more problems with diarrhoea (19.23; 95%CI 11.79 to 26.27; p

OBJECTIVE: The Bishop score is the only available tool for predicting successful labor induction. Vaginal fetal fibronectin has been shown to predict which patients will enter labor spontaneously, usually within 2 weeks. This study was designed to determine whether fetal fibronectin can also predict the success of labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: Term patients undergoing labor induction had a single swab from the vagina tested for fetal fibronectin before initiation of cervical ripening or oxytocin. The swab was tested with a blinded qualitative immunoassay for fetal fibronectin (positive ≥ 50 ng/ml). RESULTS: Of the overall 160 subjects, 108 had a positive and 52 had a negative fetal fibronectin result. Patients with a positive result had a lower cesarean section rate (15% vs 27%, p = 0.05) and shorter intervals to delivery, including first dose of prostaglandin to delivery interval (21.3 vs 35.8 hours, p = 0.0001) and first stage of labor (14.8 vs 21.2 hours, p = 0.0009). These differences remain similar even in nulliparous women with Bishop scores ≤ 5, with patients with positive results having statistically shorter intervals to delivery and similar differences in cesarean section rates (22% vs 35%), although this difference was not significant. In this subgroup more than half the patients in the negative results group (11/20) were undelivered after 24 hours and were judged to require a second dose of prostaglandin compared with only 2 of 53 in the group with positive results ( p = 0.000001). By stepwise logistic regression analysis the predictive ability of a positive result for fetal fibronectin was found to be independent of the Bishop score. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal fetal fibronectin appears to be an efficacious new test that independently predicts which patients will have shorter and easier inductions of labor and lower cesarean section rates, even nulliparous patients with low Bishop scores. This test has the potential for clinical utility and cost reduction. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1516-21.)

Background There is no standard systemic therapy for metastatic esophageal cancer progressing after 1st/2nd line chemotherapy (Thallinger et al, 2011, JCO, 4709-14). High EGFR expression is associated with poor prognosis in esophageal cancer. A phase II trial of the EGFR kinase inhibitor gefitinib showed good tolerance with 11% partial responses and a trend towards improved survival (Ferry et al. Clin Cancer Res 2007, 13: 5869-75). Four other phase II trials showed objective responses with gefitinib or erlotinib. Cancer Research UK funded this pivotal phase III trial with free study drug provided by Astra Zeneca UK. Methods Adults with measurable/evaluable metastatic esophageal or types I/II junctional adeno or squamous cell carcinoma progressing after prior chemotherapy, with performance status (PS) 0-2 were randomised 1:1 to 500mg gefitinib (G) or placebo (P), treated until progression. Primary outcome: overall survival (OS) - an increase from 10-18% in 1yr OS is detectable with 450 patients, power 82.5%, significance level 5%, analysed with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test. Secondary outcomes include safety, PFS, HRQL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25) and predictive biomarkers. Results Recruitment of 450 patients from 51 UK centres occurred Mar 2009-Nov 2011. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced - median age 64 years; 83% male; 76% adenocarcinoma; 78% esophageal; PS0 25%, PS1 54%, PS2 21%. Median PFS was P 35 days, G 49 days (HR = 0.795, 95%CI 0.66, 0.96, p = 0.017). Median OS was P 3.60 months, G 3.73 months (HR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.74, 1.09, p = 0.285). No significant safety concerns emerged. PS is a highly significant prognostic factor for both PFS (median PFS: PS0 1.8, PS1 1.4, PS2 1.0 months) and OS (median OS: PS0 6.0, PS1 3.9, PS2 2.0 months). Disease control rate at 8 weeks in patients with measurable disease was P 16.0%, G 25.5% (p = 0.014). HRQL was assessed for the pre-specified outcomes of QoL, dysphagia, eating and odynophagia, the latter of which was improved for gefitinib (p = 0.004). Conclusion COG is the first large randomised trial in the 2nd/3rd line setting in esophageal cancer. Although the primary OS endpoint was not acheived, there was significant PFS improvement and palliation. Durable responses were seen, and the translational study (Trans-COG) is investigating the correlation of benefit with biomarkers. Disclosure D.R. Ferry: Consultant role for Astra Zeneca Honoraria from Astra Zeneca Research funding from Astra Zeneca M. Harrison: Wife has shares in Astra Zeneca. Otherwise no conflicts of interest A. Chatterjee: Received and honoraria for a presentation on gefitinib. otherwise no conflicts of interest A. Garcia-Alonso: A consultant/advisory role for Roche. otherwise no conflicts of interest J. Jankowski: Consultant to AstraZeneca. No other conflicts of interest R.D. Petty: Consultant for Roche and Astra Zeneca (compensated) Honoraria from Roche and Pfizer Research funding from Roche All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

e14587 Background: This phase I study assessed the combination of D, C, and continuous CAP in AEC to develop a regimen of acceptable toxicity to take forward to phase II study. Methods: Patients with AEC were treated in cohorts of 3, at one of 3 dose levels (DL). DL0: D at 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, C at 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, CAP at 1,000 mg/m2 per day in two divided doses days 1-21, every 3 weeks. DL1: CAP increased to 1,250 mg/m2 per day. DL2: D increased to 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 and CAP to 1,250 mg/m2 per day. Prophylactic colony stimulating factors were not used. Patients received a maximum of 6 cycles. Blood counts and biochemistry were assessed twice weekly and daily for grade 3/4 abnormality. Results: Between 1.11.07 and 24.6.09 15 patients were enrolled: male/female:14/1, WHO PS:0/1:10/5, median age 63 yr (range 46-69), primary site oesophagus/GOJ/stomach:7/3/5, adeno/squamous:14/1, T2/3/4:2/9/4, N0/1/2:1/13/1, M0/1:1/14. 6 patients were treated at DL0, 6 at DL1 and 3 at DL2. All patients received 6 cycles apart from 2 at DL 1 who received 3 because of disease progression. Dose intensity: DL0: D 95%, C 100%, CAP 85%; DL1: D 91%, C 98.2%, CAP 79%; DL2: D 86%, C 100%, CAP 79%. There were no deaths on chemotherapy or within 30d of the last dose. The main dose limiting toxicity was febrile or infective neutropenia developing in 1/6 DL0, 2/6 DL1 and 3/3 DL2 (see table of most common treatment-related adverse events below: serious toxicity is gr 3 unless specified gr 4). The maximum length of gr 4 neutropenia was 5d. Best response (RECIST): 1 CR, 11PR, 2 SD and 1PD. 11 patients received second-line chemotherapy. Median and 1 yr overall survival: 17.5m and 60%. Median and 1 yr progression-free survival: 7m and 27%. Conclusions: TCX DLO is recommended for further study in a phase II trial. Encouraging response and survival were seen. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data have indicated the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent cetuximab (Erbitux) as a radiosensitizer in pancreatic cancer, but this has not been specifically addressed in a clinical study. We report the results of an original study initiated in 2007, where cetuximab was tested with radiotherapy (RT) alone in locally advanced pancreatic cancer in a phase II trial (PACER). METHODS: Patients (n = 21) received cetuximab loading dose (400 mg/m2) and weekly dose (250 mg/m2) during RT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions). Toxicity and disease response end point data were prospectively assessed. A feasibility study of on-trial patient blood and skin sampling was incorporated. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated, and toxicity was low; most patients (71%) experienced acute toxicities of grade 2 or less. Six months posttreatment, stable local disease was achieved in 90% of evaluable patients, but only 33% were free from metastatic progression. Median overall survival was 7.5 months, and actuarial survival was 33% at 1 year and 11% at 3 years, reflecting swift metastatic progression in some patients but good long-term control of localized disease in others. High-grade acneiform rash (P = .0027), posttreatment stable disease (P = .0059), and pretreatment cancer antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) level (P = .0042) associated with extended survival. Patient skin and blood samples yielded sufficient RNA and good quality protein, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that cetuximab inhibits EGFR-mediated radioresistance to achieve excellent local control with minimal toxicity but does not sufficiently control metastatic progression in all patients. Translational studies of patient tissue samples may yield molecular information that may enable individual treatment response prediction.