929 research outputs found

    Gemcitabine and Irinotecan for Patients with Untreated Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: SWOG 0119

    Get PDF
    IntroductionTo evaluate the activity of a nonplatinum-, nonetoposide-containing regimen for patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer.MethodsPatients with untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer were treated with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Patients with brain metastases were eligible if asymptomatic or controlled after radiation.ResultsEighty-four eligible patients with untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer with adequate organ function and a performance status of 0–2 were accrued. The median age was 64 years (range, 42–85) and 45 (54%) were women. Six cycles were completed by 28 (33%) patients. Some degree of diarrhea occurred in 57% (grade 3/4, 18%). Other grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (26%), anemia (10%), thrombocytopenia (8%), febrile neutropenia (5%), fatigue (11%), nausea (10%), and vomiting (8%). The response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval: 22%–43%) among the 81 patients with measurable disease. The median survival was 8.5 months (95% confidence interval: 7.0–9.8) with 1- and 2-year survival rates of 26% and 7%, respectively. Salvage therapy data were captured by prospective collection, and only 50% of patients were treated secondarily.ConclusionThe overall response rate with the combination of gemcitabine and irinotecan was disappointing, and the median survival rate was lower than expected. Further development of this combination in small cell lung cancer is not recommended

    Impact of an Interactive On-line Tool on Therapeutic Decision-Making for Patients with Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

    Get PDF
    Background:Treatment guidelines provide recommendations but cannot account for the wide variability in patient-tumor characteristics in individual patients. We developed an on-line interactive decision tool to provide expert recommendations for specific patient scenarios in the first-line and maintenance settings for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. We sought to determine how providing expert feedback would influence clinical decision-making.Method:Five lung cancer experts selected treatment for 96 different patient cases based on patient and/or tumor-specific features. These data were used to develop an on-line decision tool. Participant physicians entered variables for their patient scenario with treatment choices, and then received expert treatment recommendations for that scenario. To determine the impact on decision-making, users were asked whether the expert feedback impacted their original plan.Results:A total of 442 individual physicians, of which 88% were from outside the United States, entered 653 cases, with report on impact in 389 cases. Expert feedback affected treatment choice in 73% of cases (23% changed and 50% confirmed decisions). For cases with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion, all experts selected targeted therapy whereas 51% and 58% of participants did not. Greater variability was seen between experts and participants for cases involving EGFR or ALK wild-type tumors. Participants were 2.5-fold more likely to change to expert recommended therapy for ALK fusions than for EGFR mutations (p = 0.017).Conclusion:This online tool for treatment decision-making resulted in a positive influence on clinician's decisions. This approach offers opportunities for improving quality of care and meets an educational need in application of new therapeutic paradigms

    1281O Atezolizumab (atezo) vs platinum-based chemo in blood-based tumour mutational burden-positive (bTMB+) patients (pts) with first-line (1L) advanced/metastatic (m)NSCLC: Results of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST) phase III cohort C

    Get PDF
    Background: TMB is a promising biomarker for immunotherapy in NSCLC, but current data are mostly retrospective. As not all pts may have sufficient tissue for comprehensive biomarker testing, bTMB was prospectively tested as a novel biomarker using targeted next-generation sequencing. BFAST (NCT03178552), a global, open-label, multi-cohort trial, evaluated safety and efficacy of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in biomarker-selected pts with unresectable mNSCLC. Here we present results from Cohort C of 1L atezo vs platinum-based chemo in pts with bTMB+ mNSCLC. Methods: We planned to randomise ≈440 pts with 1L mNSCLC with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 and bTMB ≄10 (9.1 mut/Mb; FMI bTMB assay) 1:1 to atezo 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks or chemo and stratified by tissue availability, ECOG PS, bTMB and histology. The primary endpoint was INV-PFS per RECIST 1.1 in bTMB ≄16 (14.5 mut/Mb) pts. Key secondary endpoints included OS in bTMB ≄10 (intent to treat, ITT) and bTMB ≄16 pts, and INV-PFS in ITT pts. Results: 471 pts were assigned to atezo (n=234) or chemo (n=237). At baseline, 72% had non-squamous histology, 2% never smoked and median SLD was 103 mm. 145 pts with bTMB ≄16 were assigned to atezo and 146 to chemo. At data cutoff (21 May 2020) minimum follow up was 6 mo. INV-PFS difference in bTMB ≄16 pts for atezo vs chemo was not significant (P=0.053; Table). Grade 3-4 TRAEs occurred in 18% (atezo) vs 46% (chemo) of pts. Serious TRAEs occurred in 12% (atezo) vs 14% (chemo). Results at other bTMB thresholds and by F1L CDx will also be presented as an exploratory analysis. Conclusions: The primary PFS endpoint in bTMB ≄16 pts was not met. OS was numerically better with atezo vs chemo but the difference was not statistically significant. The safety profile of atezo vs chemo was favourable and consistent with atezo monotherapy across indications

    Cetuximab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab in Advanced NSCLC (SWOG S0819): A Randomised, Phase 3 Study

    Get PDF
    Background EGFR antibodies have shown promise in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly with squamous cell histology. We hypothesised that EGFR copy number by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) can identify patients most likely to benefit from these drugs combined with chemotherapy and we aimed to explore the activity of cetuximab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who are EGFR FISH-positive. Methods We did this open-label, phase 3 study (SWOG S0819) at 277 sites in the USA and Mexico. We randomly assigned (1:1) eligible patients with treatment-naive stage IV NSCLC to receive paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2; every 21 days) plus carboplatin (area under the curve of 6 by modified Calvert formula; every 21 days) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg; every 21 days), either with cetuximab (250 mg/m 2 weekly after loading dose; cetuximab group) or without (control group), stratified by bevacizumab treatment, smoking status, and M-substage using a dynamic-balancing algorithm. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with EGFR FISH-positive cancer and overall survival in the entire study population. We analysed clinical outcomes with the intention-to-treat principle and analysis of safety outcomes included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00946712). Findings Between Aug 13, 2009, and May 30, 2014, we randomly assigned 1313 patients to the control group (n=657; 277 with bevacizumab and 380 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population) or the cetuximab group (n=656; 283 with bevacizumab and 373 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population). EGFR FISH was assessable in 976 patients and 400 patients (41%) were EGFR FISH-positive. The median follow-up for patients last known to be alive was 35·2 months (IQR 22·9–39·9). After 194 progression-free survival events in the cetuximab group and 198 in the control group in the EGFR FISH-positive subpopulation, progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·75–1·12; p=0·40; median 5·4 months [95% CI 4·5–5·7] vs 4·8 months [3·9–5·5]). After 570 deaths in the cetuximab group and 593 in the control group, overall survival did not differ between the treatment groups in the entire study population (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·83–1·04; p=0·22; median 10·9 months [95% CI 9·5–12·0] vs 9·2 months [8·7–10·3]). In the prespecified analysis of EGFR FISH-positive subpopulation with squamous cell histology, overall survival was significantly longer in the cetuximab group than in the control group (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·36–0·86; p=0·0071), although progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups in this subgroup (0·68, 0·46–1·01; p=0·055). Overall survival and progression-free survival did not differ among patients who were EGFR FISH non-positive with squamous cell histology (HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·78–1·40; p=0·77; and 1·02, 0·77–1·36; p=0·88 respectively) or patients with non-squamous histology regardless of EGFR FISH status (for EGFR FISH-positive 0·88, 0·68–1·14; p=0·34; and 0·99, 0·78–1·27; p=0·96; respectively; and for EGFR FISH non-positive 1·00, 0·85–1·17; p=0·97; and 1·03, 0·88–1·20; p=0·69; respectively). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (210 [37%] in the cetuximab group vs 158 [25%] in the control group), decreased leucocyte count (103 [16%] vs 74 [20%]), fatigue (81 [13%] vs 74 [20%]), and acne or rash (52 [8%] vs one [\u3c 1%]). 59 (9%) patients in the cetuximab group and 31 (5%) patients in the control group had severe adverse events. Deaths related to treatment occurred in 32 (6%) patients in the cetuximab group and 13 (2%) patients in the control group. Interpretation Although this study did not meet its primary endpoints, prespecified subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR FISH-positive squamous-cell carcinoma cancers are encouraging and support continued evaluation of anti-EGFR antibodies in this subpopulation

    Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions BR(B0 -> K*0 gamma)/BR(Bs0 -> phi gamma)

    Get PDF
    The ratio of branching fractions of the radiative B decays B0 -> K*0 gamma and Bs0 -> phi gamma has been measured using 0.37 fb-1 of pp collisions at a centre of mass energy of sqrt(s) = 7 TeV, collected by the LHCb experiment. The value obtained is BR(B0 -> K*0 gamma)/BR(Bs0 -> phi gamma) = 1.12 +/- 0.08 ^{+0.06}_{-0.04} ^{+0.09}_{-0.08}, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic and the third is associated to the ratio of fragmentation fractions fs/fd. Using the world average for BR(B0 -> K*0 gamma) = (4.33 +/- 0.15) x 10^{-5}, the branching fraction BR(Bs0 -> phi gamma) is measured to be (3.9 +/- 0.5) x 10^{-5}, which is the most precise measurement to date.Comment: 15 pages, 1 figure, 2 table

    Measurement of the CKM angle Îł from a combination of B±→Dh± analyses

    Get PDF
    A combination of three LHCb measurements of the CKM angle Îł is presented. The decays B±→D K± and B±→Dπ± are used, where D denotes an admixture of D0 and D0 mesons, decaying into K+K−, π+π−, K±π∓, K±π∓π±π∓, K0Sπ+π−, or K0S K+K− ïŹnal states. All measurements use a dataset corresponding to 1.0 fb−1 of integrated luminosity. Combining results from B±→D K± decays alone a best-ïŹt value of Îł =72.0◩ is found, and conïŹdence intervals are set Îł ∈ [56.4,86.7]◩ at 68% CL, Îł ∈ [42.6,99.6]◩ at 95% CL. The best-ïŹt value of Îł found from a combination of results from B±→Dπ± decays alone, is Îł =18.9◩, and the conïŹdence intervals Îł ∈ [7.4,99.2]◩ âˆȘ [167.9,176.4]◩ at 68% CL are set, without constraint at 95% CL. The combination of results from B± → D K± and B± → Dπ± decays gives a best-ïŹt value of Îł =72.6◩ and the conïŹdence intervals Îł ∈ [55.4,82.3]◩ at 68% CL, Îł ∈ [40.2,92.7]◩ at 95% CL are set. All values are expressed modulo 180◩, and are obtained taking into account the effect of D0–D0 mixing
    • 

    corecore