Aprepitant for Cough Suppression in Advanced Lung Cancer:A Randomized Trial

BackgroundAlthough cough is a common and distressing symptom in patients with lung cancer, there is almost no evidence to guide treatment. Aprepitant, a centrally acting neurokinin-1 inhibitor, significantly decreased cough frequency in a pilot study.MethodsPatients with advanced lung cancer and cough lasting over 2 weeks despite a cough suppressant were randomized 1:1 to aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and then 80 mg orally on days 2 to 7 with physician's choice of antitussive; or to physician's choice of antitussive alone. Evaluation was at baseline and on days 3, 7, 9, and 12. The primary end point was subjective cough improvement on day 9, measured by the Visual Analog Scale and Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale. Secondary end points included quality of life (QoL) as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Lung Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and toxicity.ResultsBetween 2017 and 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Median baseline cough duration was 90 days. Mean Visual Analog Scale scores (in mm) at baseline and day 9 were 68 and 39 in the aprepitant arm and 62 and 49 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001); mean Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale scores at baseline and day 9 were 33 and 23 in the aprepitant arm and 30 and 25 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001). Overall QoL was not significantly different between the two arms; however, aprepitant led to a significant improvement in the cough-specific QoL domain (P = .017). Aprepitant did not increase severe adverse events.ConclusionsAprepitant led to a significant improvement in cough in advanced lung cancer, without increasing severe side effects

Aprepitant for Cough Suppression in Advanced Lung Cancer:A Randomized Trial

BackgroundAlthough cough is a common and distressing symptom in patients with lung cancer, there is almost no evidence to guide treatment. Aprepitant, a centrally acting neurokinin-1 inhibitor, significantly decreased cough frequency in a pilot study.MethodsPatients with advanced lung cancer and cough lasting over 2 weeks despite a cough suppressant were randomized 1:1 to aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and then 80 mg orally on days 2 to 7 with physician's choice of antitussive; or to physician's choice of antitussive alone. Evaluation was at baseline and on days 3, 7, 9, and 12. The primary end point was subjective cough improvement on day 9, measured by the Visual Analog Scale and Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale. Secondary end points included quality of life (QoL) as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EORTC Lung Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and toxicity.ResultsBetween 2017 and 2018, 128 patients were randomized. Median baseline cough duration was 90 days. Mean Visual Analog Scale scores (in mm) at baseline and day 9 were 68 and 39 in the aprepitant arm and 62 and 49 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001); mean Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer Scale scores at baseline and day 9 were 33 and 23 in the aprepitant arm and 30 and 25 in the control arm, respectively (P < .001). Overall QoL was not significantly different between the two arms; however, aprepitant led to a significant improvement in the cough-specific QoL domain (P = .017). Aprepitant did not increase severe adverse events.ConclusionsAprepitant led to a significant improvement in cough in advanced lung cancer, without increasing severe side effects

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible

Low-cost oral metronomic chemotherapy versus intravenous cisplatin in patients with recurrent, metastatic, inoperable head and neck carcinoma:an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Regimens for palliation in patients with head and neck cancer recommended by the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have low applicability (less than 1–3%) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) because of their cost. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with head and neck cancer who received metronomic chemotherapy had better outcomes when compared with those who received intravenous cisplatin, which is commonly used as the standard of care in LMICs. We aimed to do a phase 3 study to substantiate these findings.METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial at the Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Center, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. We enrolled adult patients (aged 18–70 years) who planned to receive palliative systemic treatment for relapsed, recurrent, or newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1 and measurable disease, as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to receive either oral metronomic chemotherapy, consisting of 15 mg/m² methotrexate once per week plus 200 mg celecoxib twice per day until disease progression or until the development of intolerable side-effects, or 75 mg/m² intravenous cisplatin once every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was done by use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with a block size of four, and patients were stratified by primary tumour site and previous cancer-directed treatment. The primary endpoint was median overall survival. Assuming that 6-month overall survival in the intravenous cisplatin group would be 40%, a non-inferiority margin of 13% was defined. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. All patients who completed at least one cycle of the assigned treatment were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India, CTRI/2015/11/006388, and is completed.FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2016, and Jan 17, 2020, 422 patients were randomly assigned: 213 to the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 209 to the intravenous cisplatin group. All 422 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 418 patients (211 in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 207 in the intravenous cisplatin group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. At a median follow-up of 15·73 months, median overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis population was 7·5 months (IQR 4·6–12·6) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group compared with 6·1 months (3·2–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·773 [95% CI 0·615–0·97, p=0·026]). In the per-protocol analysis population, median overall survival was 7·5 months (4·7–12·8) in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group and 6·1 months (3·4–9·6) in the intravenous cisplatin group (unadjusted HR for death 0·775 [95% CI 0·616–0·974, p=0·029]). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 37 (19%) of 196 patients in the oral metronomic chemotherapy group versus 61 (30%) of 202 patients in the intravenous cisplatin group (p=0·01).INTERPRETATION: Oral metronomic chemotherapy is non-inferior to intravenous cisplatin with respect to overall survival in head and neck cancer in the palliative setting, and is associated with fewer adverse events. It therefore represents a new alternative standard of care if current NCCN-approved options for palliative therapy are not feasible