Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic and Mixed Pain in Children and Adolescents: Results of a Survey Study amongst Practitioners

Validated diagnostic tools to diagnose chronic neuropathic and mixed pain in children are missing. Therapeutic options are often derived from therapeutics for adults. To investigate the international practice amongst practitioners for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain in children and adolescents, we performed a survey study among members of learned societies or groups whose members are known to treat pediatric pain. The survey included questions concerning practitioners and practice characteristics, assessment and diagnosis, treatment and medication. We analyzed 117 returned questionnaires, of which 41 (35%) were fully completed and 76 (65%) were partially completed. Most respondents based the diagnosis of neuropathic pain on physical examination (68 (58.1%)), patient history (67 (57.3%)), and underlying disease (59 (50.4%)) combined. Gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin were the first-choice treatments for moderate neuropathic pain. Tramadol, ibuprofen, amitriptyline, and paracetamol were the first-choice treatments for moderate mixed pain. Consensus on the diagnostic process of neuropathic pain in children and adolescents is lacking. Drug treatment varies widely for moderate, severe neuropathic, and mixed pain. Hence, diagnostic tools and therapy need to be harmonized and validated for use in children

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN):updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone. Methods: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, or platinum–etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum–etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. Findings: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and 269 to platinum–etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3–27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6–12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62–0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3–14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum–etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum–etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum–etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum–etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum–etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. Funding: AstraZeneca.</p

Perioperative Pembrolizumab for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Among patients with resectable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a perioperative approach that includes both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition may provide benefit beyond either approach alone.METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate perioperative pembrolizumab in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Participants with resectable stage II, IIIA, or IIIB (N2 stage) NSCLC were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks, each of which was given with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 13 cycles. The dual primary end points were event-free survival (the time from randomization to the first occurrence of local progression that precluded the planned surgery, unresectable tumor, progression or recurrence, or death) and overall survival. Secondary end points included major pathological response, pathological complete response, and safety.RESULTS A total of 397 participants were assigned to the pembrolizumab group, and 400 to the placebo group. At the prespecified first interim analysis, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. Event-free survival at 24 months was 62.4% in the pembrolizumab group and 40.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.72; P<0.001). The estimated 24-month overall survival was 80.9% in the pembrolizumab group and 77.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.02, which did not meet the significance criterion). A major pathological response occurred in 30.2% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and in 11.0% of those in the placebo group (difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 13.9 to 24.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001), and a pathological complete response occurred in 18.1% and 4.0%, respectively (difference, 14.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.1 to 18.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001). Across all treatment phases, 44.9% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% of those in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, including 1.0% and 0.8%, respectively, who had grade 5 events.CONCLUSIONS Among patients with resectable, early-stage NSCLC, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved event-free survival, major pathological response, and pathological complete response as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by surgery. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups in this analysis