No abstract

Purpose ARCHER 1050, a randomized, open-label, phase III study of dacomitinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and activating mutations in EGFR, reported significant improvement in progression-free survival with dacomitinib. The mature overall survival (OS) analysis for the intention-to-treat population is presented here. Patients and Methods In this multinational, multicenter study, patients age 18 years or older (≥ 20 years in Japan and Korea) who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and newly diagnosed NSCLC with activating mutations in EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to dacomitinib (n = 227) or gefitinib (n = 225). Random assignment was stratified by race (Japanese, Chinese, other East Asian, or non-Asian) and EGFR mutation type. The final OS analysis was conducted with a data cutoff date of February 17, 2017; at that time 220 deaths (48.7%) were observed. Results During a median follow-up time of 31.3 months, 103 (45.4%) and 117 (52.0%) deaths occurred in the dacomitinib and gefitinib arms, respectively. The estimated hazard ratio for OS was 0.760 (95% CI, 0.582 to 0.993; two-sided P = .044). The median OS was 34.1 months with dacomitinib versus 26.8 months with gefitinib. The OS probabilities at 30 months were 56.2% and 46.3% with dacomitinib and gefitinib, respectively. Preliminary subgroup analyses for OS that are based on baseline characteristics were consistent with the primary OS analysis. Conclusion In patients with advanced NSCLC and EGFR activating mutations, dacomitinib is the first second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to show significant improvement in OS in a phase III randomized study compared with a standard-of-care TKI. Dacomitinib should be considered one of the standard treatment options for these patients.

BackgroundThe ATLAS trial compared axitinib versus placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at risk of recurrence after nephrectomy.Patients and methodsIn a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial, patients had >50% clear-cell RCC, had undergone nephrectomy, and had no evidence of macroscopic residual or metastatic disease [independent review committee (IRC) confirmed]. The intent-to-treat population included all randomized patients [≥pT2 and/or N+, any Fuhrman grade (FG), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0/1]. Patients (stratified by risk group/country) received (1 : 1) oral twice-daily axitinib 5 mg or placebo for ≤3 years, with a 1-year minimum unless recurrence, occurrence of second primary malignancy, significant toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS) per IRC. A prespecified DFS analysis in the highest-risk subpopulation (pT3, FG ≥ 3 or pT4 and/or N+, any T, any FG) was conducted.ResultsA total of 724 patients (363 versus 361, axitinib versus placebo) were randomized from 8 May 2012, to 1 July 2016. The trial was stopped due to futility at a preplanned interim analysis at 203 DFS events. There was no significant difference in DFS per IRC [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.870; 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.660–1.147; P = 0.3211). In the highest-risk subpopulation, a 36% and 27% reduction in risk of a DFS event (HR; 95% CI) was observed per investigator (0.641; 0.468–0.879; P = 0.0051), and by IRC (0.735; 0.525–1.028; P = 0.0704), respectively. Overall survival data were not mature. Similar adverse events (AEs; 99% versus 92%) and serious AEs (19% versus 14%), but more grade 3/4 AEs (61% versus 30%) were reported for axitinib versus placebo.ConclusionsATLAS did not meet its primary end point; however, improvement in DFS per investigator was seen in the highest-risk subpopulation. No new safety signals were reported.Trial registration numberNCT01599754

No abstract

Background Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations. Methods Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI). Results By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92). Conclusions As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.