Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a novel combination with promising efficacy in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This combination demonstrated high objective response rates in a single-arm phase 1b/2 trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-146/Study 111) after ≤2 previous lines of therapy. In a randomized phase 3 trial of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-775/Study 309), after 1‒2 previous lines of therapy (including neoadjuvant/adjuvant), this combination improved objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer, with measurable or radiographically apparent disease. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors and all patients (all-comers). TRIAL DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-controlled trial. Patients will receive pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks plus lenvatinib orally daily or paclitaxel plus carboplatin intravenously every 3 weeks, stratified by mismatch repair status (proficient vs deficient). Patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors will be further stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1), measurable disease (yes/no), and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (yes/no). MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adults with stage III/IV/recurrent histologically confirmed endometrial cancer that is measurable or radiographically apparent per blinded independent central review. Patients may have received previous chemotherapy only as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and/or concurrently with radiation. Patients with carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Müllerian tumor), endometrial leiomyosarcoma, or other high grade sarcomas, or endometrial stromal sarcomas were excluded. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Progression-free and overall survival (dual primary endpoints). SAMPLE SIZE: About 875 patients. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Enrollment is expected to take approximately 24 months, with presentation of results in 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03884101

Covert observation in practice: lessons from the evaluation of the prohibition of smoking in public places in Scotland

Background: A ban on smoking in wholly or substantially enclosed public places has been in place in Scotland since 26th March 2006. The impact of this legislation is currently being evaluated in seven studies, three of which involve direct observation of smoking in bars and other enclosed public places. While the ethical issues around covert observation have been widely discussed there is little practical guidance on the conduct of such research. A workshop was therefore convened to identify practical lessons learned so far from the Scottish evaluation. Methods: We convened a workshop involving researchers from the three studies which used direct observation. In addition, one of the fieldwork managers collected written feedback on the fieldwork, identifying problems that arose in the field and some solutions. Results: There were four main themes identified: (i) the difficulty of achieving and maintaining concealment; (ii) the experience of being an observer; (iii) the risk of bias in the observations and (iv) issues around training and recruitment. These are discussed. Conclusion: Collecting covert observational data poses unique practical challenges, in particular in relation to the health and safety of the researcher. The findings and solutions presented in this paper will be of value to researchers designing similar studies

Regional and experiential differences in surgeon preference for the treatment of cervical facet injuries: a case study survey with the AO Spine Cervical Classification Validation Group

Purpose: The management of cervical facet dislocation injuries remains controversial. The main purpose of this investigation was to identify whether a surgeon’s geographic location or years in practice influences their preferred management of traumatic cervical facet dislocation injuries. Methods: A survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. The survey included clinical case scenarios of cervical facet dislocation injuries and asked responders to select preferences among various diagnostic and management options. Results: A total of 189 complete responses were received. Over 50% of responding surgeons in each region elected to initiate management of cervical facet dislocation injuries with an MRI, with 6 case exceptions. Overall, there was considerable agreement between American and European responders regarding management of these injuries, with only 3 cases exhibiting a significant difference. Additionally, results also exhibited considerable management agreement between those with ≤ 10 and > 10 years of practice experience, with only 2 case exceptions noted. Conclusion: More than half of responders, regardless of geographical location or practice experience, identified MRI as a screening imaging modality when managing cervical facet dislocation injuries, regardless of the status of the spinal cord and prior to any additional intervention. Additionally, a majority of surgeons would elect an anterior approach for the surgical management of these injuries. The study found overall agreement in management preferences of cervical facet dislocation injuries around the globe

Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication

Background: The phase III CLinical Evaluation Of Pertuzumab And TRAstuzumab (CLEOPATRA) trial established the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel as standard first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The multicentre single-arm PERtUzumab global SafEty (PERUSE) study assessed the safety and efficacy of pertuzumab and trastuzumab combined with investigator-selected taxane in this setting. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with inoperable HER2-positive LR/mBC and no prior systemic therapy for LR/mBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab and pertuzumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prespecified subgroup analyses included subgroups according to taxane, hormone receptor (HR) status and prior trastuzumab. Exploratory univariable analyses identified potential prognostic factors; those that remained significant in multivariable analysis were used to analyse PFS and OS in subgroups with all, some or none of these factors. Results: Of 1436 treated patients, 588 (41%) initially received paclitaxel and 918 (64%) had HR-positive disease. The most common grade 653 adverse events were neutropenia (10%, mainly with docetaxel) and diarrhoea (8%). At the final analysis (median follow-up: 5.7 years), median PFS was 20.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9-23.1] months overall and was similar irrespective of HR status or taxane. Median OS was 65.3 (95% CI 60.9-70.9) months overall. OS was similar regardless of taxane backbone but was more favourable in patients with HR-positive than HR-negative LR/mBC. In exploratory analyses, trastuzumab-pretreated patients with visceral disease had the shortest median PFS (13.1 months) and OS (46.3 months). Conclusions: Mature results from PERUSE show a safety and efficacy profile consistent with results from CLEOPATRA and median OS exceeding 5 years. Results suggest that paclitaxel is a valid alternative to docetaxel as backbone chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses suggest risk factors that could guide future trial design

Preliminary safety and efficacy of first-line pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and taxane therapy for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (PERUSE).

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab combined with trastuzumab and docetaxel is the standard first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, based on results from the phase III CLEOPATRA trial. PERUSE was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of investigator-selected taxane with pertuzumab and trastuzumab in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the ongoing multicentre single-arm phase IIIb PERUSE study, patients with inoperable HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (locally recurrent/metastatic) (LR/MBC) and no prior systemic therapy for LR/MBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab [8\u2009mg/kg loading dose, then 6\u2009mg/kg every 3\u2009weeks (q3w)] and pertuzumab (840\u2009mg loading dose, then 420\u2009mg q3w) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was safety. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Overall, 1436 patients received at least one treatment dose (initially docetaxel in 775 patients, paclitaxel in 589, nab-paclitaxel in 65; 7 discontinued before starting taxane). Median age was 54\u2009years; 29% had received prior trastuzumab. Median treatment duration was 16\u2009months for pertuzumab and trastuzumab and 4\u2009months for taxane. Compared with docetaxel-containing therapy, paclitaxel-containing therapy was associated with more neuropathy (all-grade peripheral neuropathy 31% versus 16%) but less febrile neutropenia (1% versus 11%) and mucositis (14% versus 25%). At this preliminary analysis (52 months' median follow-up), median PFS was 20.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9-22.7] months overall (19.6, 23.0 and 18.1\u2009months with docetaxel, paclitaxel and nab-paclitaxel, respectively). ORR was 80% (95% CI 78%-82%) overall (docetaxel 79%, paclitaxel 83%, nab-paclitaxel 77%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings from PERUSE suggest that the safety and efficacy of first-line pertuzumab, trastuzumab and taxane for HER2-positive LR/MBC are consistent with results from CLEOPATRA. Paclitaxel appears to be a valid alternative taxane backbone to docetaxel, offering similar PFS and ORR with a predictable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01572038

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: Are the Promises of Long-Term Benefit Finally Met?

Over the last few years, agents targeting immune checkpoints have shown potential to improve therapeutic outcomes in patients with lung cancer in multiple clinical settings. Inhibitors of PD-1/PD-L1 have been approved for the treatment of different types of lung cancer by the FDA either alone or in combination with chemotherapy or other immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-CTLA-4 agents. The introduction of these agents in clinical practice has revolutionized the therapeutic approach to lung cancer, keeping the promises of long-term benefit in selected patient populations. The therapeutic indications of immunotherapy in lung cancer are rapidly growing, and multiple combinations entered clinical practice or are under active development. Furthermore, the quest for a reliable predictive biomarker is still ongoing to overcome the limits of currently approved tests for patients’ selection. In this review, we summarized the current status and progress of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in lung cancer treatment