NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Gemcitabine; Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de pàncrees metastàticGemcitabina; Adenocarcinoma ductal de páncreas metastásicoBackground Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). Methods NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235. Findings Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4–19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0–12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3–10·6) with nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group. Interpretation Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC.Ipsen

Time Until Partial Response in Metastatic Adrenocortical Carcinoma Long-Term Survivors

A partial response (PR) has been proposed as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). The primary endpoint of the study was to characterize the time until a PR in patients with metastatic ACC treated with a standard therapy is achieved. Long-term survivors were selected to allow evaluation of delayed tumor response to mitotane. Records from patients with metastatic ACC that survived for > 24 months were retrieved. Tumor response was analyzed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Time until a tumor response, after treatment initiation or therapeutic plasma mitotane level, was analyzed. Sixty-eight patients were analyzed. The first-line systemic therapy was mitotane as a monotherapy (M) (n = 57) or cytotoxic polychemotherapy plus/minus mitotane (PC ± M) (n = 11). The second-line therapy was M (n = 2) or PC ± M (n = 41). Thirty-two PRs occurred in 30/68 patients (44.1%): this was obtained for 13 (40.6%) during M and during PC ± M for 19/32 responders (59.4%). PRs were observed within 6 months of starting M or PC ± M in 76.9 and 94.7% of responses, respectively, within 6 months of therapeutic plasma mitotane being first observed in 88.9% of responses with M and in 53.3% of responses with PC ± M. All PRs (but one) occurred within 1 year after initiating treatment. To conclude, Most patients with metastatic ACC and long survival times had PRs within the first 6 months of standard systemic therapy, and almost all within the first year. The absence of response after that period could be considered as a treatment failure. Maintenance of mitotane therapy in non-responders after 1 year should be questioned in future randomized trials

Pembrolizumab in Asian patients with microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch-repair-deficient colorectal cancer

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 study evaluated pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab in patients with newly diagnosed, microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and safety. Here, we report results from the post hoc analysis of patients who were enrolled in Asia from the final analysis (FA) of KEYNOTE-177. A total of 48 patients from Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (pembrolizumab, n =?22; chemotherapy, n =?26) were included. At FA, median time from randomization to data cutoff (February 19, 2021) was 45.3 (range 38.1?57.8) months with pembrolizumab and 43.9 (range 36.6?55.1) months with chemotherapy. Median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 months?NR) with pembrolizumab versus 10.4 (95% CI 6.3?22.0) months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.26?1.20). Median OS was NR (range 13.8 months?NR) versus 30.0 (14.7?NR) months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27?1.55) and ORR was 50% (95% CI 28?72) versus 46% (95% CI 27?67). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by two patients (9%) in the pembrolizumab arm and 20 (80%) in the chemotherapy arm. Immune-mediated adverse events or infusion reactions were reported by six patients (27%) and 10 patients (40%), respectively. No deaths due to TRAEs occurred. These data support first-line pembrolizumab as a standard of care for patients from Asia with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02563002.FUNDING INFORMATION: The study was designed under the responsibility of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, in conjunction with the steering committee. The study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Pembrolizumab was provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This work was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. We thank the patients and their families and caregivers for participating in this trial, and all investigators and site personnel. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Jemimah Walker, PhD, Mehak Aggarwal, PharmD, and Doyel Mitra, PhD, CMPP, of ApotheCom (Yardley, PA, USA). This assistance was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA

A Randomized Study of Lenvatinib 18 mg vs 24 mg in Patients With Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Background: Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor approved to treat radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) at a starting dose of 24 mg/day. This study explored, in a double-blinded fashion, whether a starting dose of 18 mg/day would provide comparable efficacy with reduced toxicity. Methods: Patients with RR-DTC were randomized to lenvatinib 24 mg/day or 18 mg/day. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the odds ratio noninferiority margin was 0.4. The primary safety endpoint was frequency of grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) as of week 24. Tumors were assessed using RECIST v1.1. TEAEs were monitored and recorded. Results: The ORRwk24 was 57.3% (95% CI 46.1, 68.5) in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 40.3% (95% CI 29.3, 51.2) in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, with an odds ratio (18/24 mg) of 0.50 (95% CI 0.26, 0.96). As of week 24, the rates of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 61.3% in the lenvatinib 24-mg arm and 57.1% in the lenvatinib 18-mg arm, a difference of -4.2% (95% CI -19.8, 11.4). Conclusion: A starting dose of lenvatinib 18 mg/day did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to a starting dose of 24 mg/day as assessed by ORRwk24 in patients with RR-DTC. The results represent a clinically meaningful difference in ORRwk24. The safety profile was comparable, with no clinically relevant difference between arms. These results support the continued use of the approved starting dose of lenvatinib 24 mg/day in patients with RR-DTC and adjusting the dose as necessary. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02702388

Childhood rhabdomyosarcoma metastatic to bone marrow presenting with disseminated intravascular coagulation and acute tumour lysis syndrome: review of the literature apropos of two cases

The paper presents diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties in two adolescents with widespread rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) presenting with severe haemorrhages resulting from disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and with laboratory features of acute tumour lysis syndrome (ATLS). Other published cases of childhood RMS with DIC at admission have been listed and reviewed. It has been concluded that the clinical picture of a widespread RMS in children may resemble acute hematologic malignancy and pose a big diagnostic problem. That is why the presence of small blue round cells morphologically similar to lymphoblasts and/or myeloblasts in bone marrow (BM), lacking hematopoietic makers, should prompt the pathologist to consider possible diagnosis of RMS. Inclusion of desmin, MyoD1 and myogenin Myf4 to the immunohistochemical panel is obligatory in such cases. When the representative histopathological tumour specimens are difficult to obtain, the flow cytometric immunophenotyping of BM metastases could help the standard morphological/immunohistological diagnostic procedures and advance the diagnosis. Recently, the flow cytometric CD45− CD56+ immunophenotype together with Myf4 transcript has been assigned to RMS cells infiltrating BM. In children with disseminated RMS complicated with DIC rapid polychemotherapy aimed at diminishing the malignancy-triggered procoagulant activity should be initiated. However, in cases with concomitant ATLS the initial doses of chemotherapy should be reduced and the metabolic disorders and renal function monitored. The prognosis in children with RMS metastatic to BM with signs of DIC or ATLS at admission depends on the response to chemotherapy, however generally it is highly disappointing