A B S T R A C T PurposeThe characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. MethodsPatients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m 2 ) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) -20 instruments during the entire course of therapy.Results P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. ConclusionThese data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.
Purpose Combination PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600 mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. Methods In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naïve BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomized to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (Arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (Arm B) in Step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in Step 2 receiving the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (Arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (Arm D). The primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility and safety. Results 265 patients were enrolled with 73 going onto Step 2 (27 Arm C, 46 Arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent DSMC due to a clinically significant endpoint being achieved. The 2-year overall survival for those starting on Arm A was 71.8% (62.5, 79.1%) and Arm B 51.5% (41.7, 60.4%) (log-rank p=0.010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored Arm A (p=0.054). Objective response rates were: Arm A:46.0%; Arm B:43.0%; Arm C:47.8%; Arm D:29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for Arm A and 12.7 months for Arm B (p<0.001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade >3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. Conclusion Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.
IMPORTANCE Erlotinib is a standard first-line therapy for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Median progression-free survival (PFS) with erlotinib is approximately 10 months. OBJECTIVE To determine whether adding bevacizumab to erlotinib treatment results in superior progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared erlotinib plus bevacizumab with erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. The trial was conducted in 17 US academic and community medical centers among 88 patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation based on local testing and stage 4 NSCLC who were eligible for bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled between November 2, 2012, and August 22, 2016, and followed up for a median (range) of 33 (0.7-62.5) months. Data were analyzed on August 28, 2018, and included data from November 2, 2012, to August 20, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized with equal allocation to 150 mg of oral erlotinib daily alone or with 15 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab every 3 weeks. Study therapy continued until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or withdrawal of consent. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was PFS as assessed by the investigator; secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and overall survival (OS). Analysis was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.667 for PFS (an improvement from a median PFS of 10 to 15 months). RESULTS Among 88 patients enrolled, the median (range) age was 63 (31-84) years; 62 patients (70%) were female; 75 (85%) were white, 8 (9%) were African American, 3 (3%) were Asian, and for 2 (2%), data on race were not available. Forty-eight patients (55%) were never smokers, 45 patients (51%) were of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, and 59 patients (67%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion. Compared with erlotinib, the combination did not result in a significant difference in PFS (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.50-1.31; P = .39; median PFS 17.9 [combination] and 13.5 months [erlotinib]), ORR (81% vs 83%; P = .81), and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.71-2.81; P = .33; median OS, 32.4 months [combination] and 50.6 months [erlotinib]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher observed in 5 or more patients in the combination and erlotinib arms were skin eruption in 11 (26%) vs 7 (16%) patients, diarrhea in 4 (9%) vs 6 (13%) patients, hypertension in 17 (40%) vs 9 (20%) patients, and proteinuria in 5 (12%) vs 0 (0%) patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared with erlotinib did not result in a significant improvement in PFS in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01532089.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.