Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BackgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) provides a modest survival benefit. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, improves outcomes when added to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage non-squamous NSCLC. We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage resected NSCLC.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and who had completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition) NSCLC. We enrolled patients from across the US National Clinical Trials Network, including patients from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) affiliates in Europe and from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, within 6-12 weeks of surgery. The chemotherapy regimen for each patient was selected before randomisation and administered intravenously; it consisted of four 21-day cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 1 in all regimens) in combination with investigator's choice of vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1). Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days starting with cycle 1 of chemotherapy and continuing for 1 year. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to group A (chemotherapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and stratified by chemotherapy regimen, stage of disease, histology, and sex. No one was masked to treatment assignment, except the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00324805.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Sept 20, 2013, 1501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). 383 (26%) of 1458 patients (with complete staging information) had stage IB, 636 (44%) had stage II, and 439 (30%) had stage IIIA disease (stage of disease data were missing for 43 patients). Squamous cell histology was reported for 422 (28%) of 1501 patients. All four cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens were used: 377 (25%) patients received vinorelbine, 343 (23%) received docetaxel, 283 (19%) received gemcitabine, and 497 (33%) received pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 50·3 months (IQR 32·9-68·0), the estimated median overall survival in group A has not been reached, and in group B was 85·8 months (95% CI 74·9 to not reached); hazard ratio (group B vs group A) 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19; p=0·90). Grade 3-5 toxicities of note (all attributions) that were reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone) were overall worst grade (ie, all grade 3-5 toxicities; 496 [67%] of 738 in group A vs 610 [83%] of 735 in group B), hypertension (60 [8%] vs 219 [30%]), and neutropenia (241 [33%] vs 275 [37%]). The number of deaths on treatment did not differ between the groups (15 deaths in group A vs 19 in group B). Of these deaths, three in group A and ten in group B were considered at least possibly related to treatment.InterpretationAddition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall survival for patients with surgically resected early-stage NSCLC. Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and should not be considered as an adjuvant therapy for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC.FundingNational Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health

Signals for Neuroscientific Research and Real-time Functional Cortical Mapping

Abstract Neuroimaging studies of human cognitive, sensory, and motor processes are usually based on noninvasive techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography or functional magnetic-resonance imaging. These techniques have either inherently low temporal or low spatial resolution, and suffer from low signal-to-noise ratio and/or poor high-frequency sensitivity. Thus, they are suboptimal for exploring the short-lived spatio-temporal dynamics of many of the underlying brain processes. In contrast, the invasive technique of electrocorticography (ECoG) provides brain signals that have an exceptionally high signal-to-noise ratio, less susceptibility to artifacts than EEG, and a high spatial and temporal resolution (i.e., <1 cm/<1 millisecond, respectively). ECoG involves measurement of electrical brain signals using electrodes that are implanted subdurally on the surface of the brain. Recent studies have shown that ECoG amplitudes in certain frequency bands carry substantial information about task-related activity, such as motor execution and planning 1 , auditory processing 2 and visual-spatial attention 3 . Most of this information is captured in the high gamma range (around 70-110 Hz). Thus, gamma activity has been proposed as a robust and general indicator of local cortical function [1][2][3][4][5] . ECoG can also reveal functional connectivity and resolve finer task-related spatial-temporal dynamics, thereby advancing our understanding of large-scale cortical processes. It has especially proven useful for advancing brain-computer interfacing (BCI) technology for decoding a user's intentions to enhance or improve communication 6 and control 7 . Nevertheless, human ECoG data are often hard to obtain because of the risks and limitations of the invasive procedures involved, and the need to record within the constraints of clinical settings. Still, clinical monitoring to localize epileptic foci offers a unique and valuable opportunity to collect human ECoG data. We describe our methods for collecting recording ECoG, and demonstrate how to use these signals for important real-time applications such as clinical mapping and brain-computer interfacing. Our example uses the BCI2000 software platform 8,9 and the SIGFRIED 10 method, an application for real-time mapping of brain functions. This procedure yields information that clinicians can subsequently use to guide the complex and laborious process of functional mapping by electrical stimulation. Prerequisites and Planning: Patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy may be candidates for resective surgery of an epileptic focus to minimize the frequency of seizures. Prior to resection, the patients undergo monitoring using subdural electrodes for two purposes: first, to localize the epileptic focus, and second, to identify nearby critical brain areas (i.e., eloquent cortex) where resection could result in long-term functional deficits. To implant electrodes, a craniotomy is performed to open the skull. Then, electrode grids and/or strips are placed on the cortex, usually beneath the dura. A typical grid has a set of 8 x 8 platinum-iridium electrodes of 4 mm diameter (2.3 mm exposed surface) embedded in silicon with an inter-electrode distance of 1cm. A strip typically contains 4 or 6 such electrodes in a single line. The locations for these grids/strips are planned by a team of neurologists and neurosurgeons, and are based on previous EEG monitoring, on a structural MRI of the patient's brain, and on relevant factors of the patient's history. Continuous recording over a period of 5-12 days serves to localize epileptic foci, and electrical stimulation via the implanted electrodes allows clinicians to map eloquent cortex. At the end of the monitoring period, explantation of the electrodes and therapeutic resection are performed together in one procedure. In addition to its primary clinical purpose, invasive monitoring also provides a unique opportunity to acquire human ECoG data for neuroscientific research. The decision to include a prospective patient in the research is based on the planned location of their electrodes, on the patient's performance scores on neuropsychological assessments, and on their informed consent, which is predicated on their understanding that participation in research is optional and is not related to their treatment. As with all research involving human subjects, the research protocol must be approved by the hospital's institutional review board. The decision to perform individual experimental tasks is made day-by-day, and is contingent on the patient's endurance and willingness to participate. Some or all of the experiments may be prevented by problems with the clinical state of the patient, such as post-operative facial swelling, temporary aphasia, frequent seizures, post-ictal fatigue and confusion, and more general pain or discomfort

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Trials

We identified a standard core set of patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains to be assessed in head and neck (H&N) cancer clinical trials. The core symptom and HRQOL domain scores were used to guide recommendations by a working group of experts as part of a National Cancer Institute Symptom Management and HRQOL Clinical Trials Planning Meeting. A PubMed search was conducted using the search terms of “health-related quality of life” and “head & neck cancer,” limited to publications from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2010. Fifty-four articles were used to guide the choice of recommendations. Twenty-nine symptoms and nine domains were identified, from which 12 H&N-specific core symptoms and HRQOL domains were recommended: swallowing, oral pain, skin changes, dry mouth, dental health, opening mouth/trismus, taste, excess/thick mucous/saliva, shoulder disability/motion, voice/hoarseness, social domain, and functional domain. This core set of 12 H&N-specific, patient-reported symptoms and HRQOL domains should be assessed in future H&N cancer clinical trials

Erlotinib, cabozantinib, or erlotinib plus cabozantinib as second-line or third-line treatment of patients with EGFR wild-type advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ECOG-ACRIN 1512): a randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BackgroundErlotinib is approved for the treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but is most active in the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cabozantinib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targets MET, VEGFR, RET, ROS1, and AXL, which are implicated in lung cancer tumorigenesis. We compared the efficacy of cabozantinib alone or in combination with erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC.MethodsThis three group, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial was done in 37 academic and community oncology practices in the USA. Patients were eligible if they had received one or two previous treatments for advanced non-squamous, EGFR wild-type, NSCLC. Patients were stratified by performance status and line of therapy, and randomly assigned using permuted blocks within strata to receive open-label oral daily dosing of erlotinib (150 mg), cabozantinib (60 mg), or erlotinib (150 mg) and cabozantinib (40 mg). Imaging was done every 8 weeks. At the time of radiographic progression, there was optional crossover for patients in either single-drug group to receive combination treatment. The primary endpoint was to compare progression-free survival in patients given erlotinib alone versus cabozantinib alone, and in patients given erlotinib alone versus the combination of erlotinib plus cabozantinib. We assessed the primary endpoint in the per-protocol population, which was defined as all patients who were eligible, randomly assigned, and received at least one dose of treatment. The safety analysis population included all patients who received study treatment irrespective of eligibility. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01708954.FindingsBetween Feb 7, 2013, and July 1, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 42 patients to erlotinib treatment, 40 patients to cabozantinib treatment, and 43 patients to erlotinib plus cabozantinib treatment, of whom 111 (89%) in total were included in the primary analysis (erlotinib [n=38], cabozantinib [n=38], erlotinib plus cabozantinib [n=35]). Compared with erlotinib alone (median 1·8 months [95% CI 1·7-2·2]), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the cabozantinib group (4·3 months [3·6-7·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 80% CI 0·27-0·55; one-sided p=0·0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group (4·7 months [2·4-7·4]; HR 0·37, 0·25-0·53; one-sided p=0·0003). Among participants included in the safety analysis of the erlotinib (n=40), cabozantinib (n=40), and erlotinib plus cabozantinib (n=39) groups, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (three [8%] cases in the erlotinib group vs three [8%] in the cabozantinib group vs 11 [28%] in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group), hypertension (none vs ten [25%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (five [13%] vs six [15%] vs six [15%]), oral mucositis (none vs four [10%] vs one [3%]), and thromboembolic event (none vs three [8%] vs two [5%]). One death due to respiratory failure occurred in the cabozantinib group, deemed possibly related to either drug, and one death due to pneumonitis occurred in the erlotinib plus cabozantinib group, deemed related to either drug or the combination.InterpretationDespite its small sample size, this trial showed that, in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, cabozantinib alone or combined with erlotinib has clinically meaningful, superior efficacy to that of erlotinib alone, with additional toxicity that was generally manageable. Cabozantinib-based regimens are promising for further investigation in this patient population.FundingECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health