We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients, aged X18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) X60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m À2 on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m À2 followed by G 1000 mg m À2 D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression. RESULTS: In total, 86 patients (A/B, n ¼ 44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3 -4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n ¼ 31 vs B n ¼ 36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR þ PR þ SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.

PURPOSE In extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), response rates to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy are robust, but responses lack durability. CheckMate 451, a double-blind phase III trial, evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab monotherapy as maintenance therapy following first-line chemotherapy for ED-SCLC. METHODS Patients with ED-SCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no progression after ≤ 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 12 weeks followed by nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo for ≤ 2 years or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo. Secondary end points were hierarchically tested. RESULTS Overall, 834 patients were randomly assigned. The minimum follow-up was 8.9 months. OS was not significantly prolonged with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.12; P = .37; median, 9.2 v 9.6 months). The HR for OS with nivolumab versus placebo was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.02); the median OS for nivolumab was 10.4 months. Progression-free survival HRs versus placebo were 0.72 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87) and 0.67 for nivolumab (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.81). A trend toward OS benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was observed in patients with tumor mutational burden ≥ 13 mutations per megabase. Rates of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were nivolumab plus ipilimumab (52.2%), nivolumab (11.5%), and placebo (8.4%). CONCLUSION Maintenance therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not prolong OS for patients with ED-SCLC who did not progress on first-line chemotherapy. There were no new safety signals.

The efficacy of LM and TMZ in the current dosing schedule is similar to that of TMZ alone. To maintain MGMT depletion in tumor dosing of LM needs to be continued beyond that of TMZ.