Showing papers in "Lancet Oncology in 2019"

Long-term safety and activity of axicabtagene ciloleucel in refractory large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1-2 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Axicabtagene ciloleucel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. In the previous analysis of the ZUMA-1 registrational study, with a median follow-up of 15·4 months (IQR 13·7–17·3), 89 (82%) of 108 assessable patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel achieved an objective response, and complete responses were noted in 63 (58%) patients. Here we report long-term activity and safety outcomes of the ZUMA-1 study. Methods ZUMA-1 is a single-arm, multicentre, registrational trial at 22 sites in the USA and Israel. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically confirmed large B-cell lymphoma—including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and transformed follicular lymphoma—according to the 2008 WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissue; refractory disease or relapsed after autologous stem-cell transplantation; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and had previously received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody containing-regimen and an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. Participants received one dose of axicabtagene ciloleucel on day 0 at a target dose of 2 × 106 CAR T cells per kg of bodyweight after conditioning chemotherapy with intravenous fludarabine (30 mg/m2 body-surface area) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2 body-surface area) on days −5, −4, and −3. The primary endpoints were safety for phase 1 and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response for phase 2, and key secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, and duration of response. Pre-planned activity and safety analyses were done per protocol. ZUMA-1 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02348216 . Although the registrational cohorts are closed, the trial remains open, and recruitment to extension cohorts with alternative endpoints is underway. Findings Between May 19, 2015, and Sept 15, 2016, 119 patients were enrolled and 108 received axicabtagene ciloleucel across phases 1 and 2. As of the cutoff date of Aug 11, 2018, 101 patients assessable for activity in phase 2 were followed up for a median of 27·1 months (IQR 25·7–28·8), 84 (83%) had an objective response, and 59 (58%) had a complete response. The median duration of response was 11·1 months (4·2–not estimable). The median overall survival was not reached (12·8–not estimable), and the median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 3·3–15·0). 52 (48%) of 108 patients assessable for safety in phases 1 and 2 had grade 3 or worse serious adverse events. Grade 3 or worse cytokine release syndrome occurred in 12 (11%) patients, and grade 3 or worse neurological events in 35 (32%). Since the previous analysis at 1 year, additional serious adverse events were reported in four patients (grade 3 mental status changes, grade 4 myelodysplastic syndrome, grade 3 lung infection, and two episodes of grade 3 bacteraemia), none of which were judged to be treatment related. Two treatment-related deaths (due to haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and cardiac arrest) were previously reported, but no new treatment-related deaths occurred during the additional follow-up. Interpretation These 2-year follow-up data from ZUMA-1 suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel can induce durable responses and a median overall survival of greater than 2 years, and has a manageable long-term safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Funding Kite and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program.

Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations have poor prognosis. We aimed to establish the efficacy of ramucirumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or higher. Methods REACH-2 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 92 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically or cytologically confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma, or diagnosed cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance statuses of 0 or 1, α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or greater, and had previously received first-line sorafenib. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system with a computer-generated random sequence to 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab every 2 weeks or placebo. All patients received best supportive care. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, proportion of patients achieving an objective response, time to radiographic progression, safety, time to deterioration in scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Hepatobiliary Symptom Index 8 (FHSI-8), and time to deterioration in ECOG performance status. We also pooled individual patient data from REACH-2 with data from REACH (NCT01140347) for patients with α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or greater. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, whereas safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02435433. Findings Between July 26, 2015, and Aug 30, 2017, 292 patients were randomly assigned, 197 to the ramucirumab group and 95 to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 7·6 months (IQR 4·0–12·5), median overall survival (8·5 months [95% CI 7·0–10·6] vs 7·3 months [5·4–9·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·710 [95% CI 0·531–0·949]; p=0·0199) and progression-free survival (2·8 months [2·8–4·1] vs 1·6 months [1·5–2·7]; 0·452 [0·339–0·603]; p Interpretation REACH-2 met its primary endpoint, showing improved overall survival for ramucirumab compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/mL who had previously received sorafenib. Ramucirumab was well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile. To our knowledge, REACH-2 is the first positive phase 3 trial done in a biomarker-selected patient population with hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Eli Lilly.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. Findings Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2–23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4–23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0–21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0–18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2–7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4–5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54–0·77]; p Interpretation IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

Abstract: Summary Background Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. Methods KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. Findings Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7–59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5–41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3–22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61–0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6–11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9–4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48–0·67, p Interpretation Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer. METHODS This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13. FINDINGS Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37-60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6-59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7-44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63-1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30-44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58-0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6-35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0-23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8-46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0-23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (<1%) patient had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients in the observation group. No deaths were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. FUNDING Cancer Research UK and Roche.

Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study.

Abstract: Summary Background Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients. Methods In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18–75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants. Findings Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3–36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5–38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8–8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6–11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria). Interpretation There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy. Funding French National Cancer Institute.

Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery

Abstract: Analysis of big data by machine learning offers considerable advantages for assimilation and evaluation of large amounts of complex health-care data. However, to effectively use machine learning tools in health care, several limitations must be addressed and key issues considered, such as its clinical implementation and ethics in health-care delivery. Advantages of machine learning include flexibility and scalability compared with traditional biostatistical methods, which makes it deployable for many tasks, such as risk stratification, diagnosis and classification, and survival predictions. Another advantage of machine learning algorithms is the ability to analyse diverse data types (eg, demographic data, laboratory findings, imaging data, and doctors' free-text notes) and incorporate them into predictions for disease risk, diagnosis, prognosis, and appropriate treatments. Despite these advantages, the application of machine learning in health-care delivery also presents unique challenges that require data pre-processing, model training, and refinement of the system with respect to the actual clinical problem. Also crucial are ethical considerations, which include medico-legal implications, doctors' understanding of machine learning tools, and data privacy and security. In this Review, we discuss some of the benefits and challenges of big data and machine learning in health care.

Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995–2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study

Abstract: Summary Background Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. Methods In this longitudinal, population-based study, we collected patient-level data on 3·9 million patients with cancer from population-based cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) for seven sites of cancer (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, and ovary) diagnosed between 1995 and 2014, and followed up until Dec 31, 2015. We calculated age-standardised net survival at 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis by site, age group, and period of diagnosis. We mapped changes in incidence and mortality to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. Findings In 19 eligible jurisdictions, 3 764 543 cases of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. In the 19 included jurisdictions, over 1995–2014, 1-year and 5-year net survival increased in each country across almost all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. For 2010–14, survival was generally higher in Australia, Canada, and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Over the study period, larger survival improvements were observed for patients younger than 75 years at diagnosis than those aged 75 years and older, and notably for cancers with a poor prognosis (ie, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and lung). Progress in cancer control (ie, increased survival, decreased mortality and incidence) over the study period was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males), and ovarian cancer. Interpretation The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality, and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. Cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries; however, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification, and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of these factors to further our understanding of international disparities in cancer survival. Funding Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind study

Abstract: Summary Background Immunotherapy combination treatments can improve patient outcomes. Epacadostat, an IDO1 selective inhibitor, and pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, showed promising antitumour activity in the phase 1–2 ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study in advanced melanoma. In this trial, we aimed to compare progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Methods In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma previously untreated with PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors, an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and had a known BRAFV600 mutant status or consented to BRAFV600 mutation testing during screening. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression and BRAFV600 mutation status and randomly assigned (1:1) through a central interactive voice and integrated web response system to receive epacadostat 100 mg orally twice daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis population included randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study was stopped after the second interim analysis; follow-up for safety is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02752074 . Findings Between June 21, 2016, and Aug 7, 2017, 928 patients were screened and 706 patients were randomly assigned to receive epacadostat plus pembrolizumab (n=354) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n=352). Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 10·3–14·5). No significant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4·7 months, 95% CI 2·9–6·8, for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs 4·9 months, 2·9–6·8, for placebo plus pembrolizumab; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; one-sided p=0·52) or overall survival (median not reached in either group; epacadostat plus pembrolizumab vs placebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1·13, 0·86–1·49; one-sided p=0·81). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase, which occurred in 14 (4%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11 (3%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 37 (10%) of 353 patients receiving epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 32 (9%) of 352 patients receiving placebo plus pembrolizumab. There were no treatment-related deaths in either treatment group. Interpretation Epacadostat 100 mg twice daily plus pembrolizumab did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival compared with placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The usefulness of IDO1 inhibition as a strategy to enhance anti-PD-1 therapy activity in cancer remains uncertain. Funding Incyte Corporation, in collaboration with Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. Methods In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. Findings Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4–36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6–not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1–33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54–0·80], p Interpretation The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-3): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Chemotherapy for patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma offers poor long-term survival prospects. We report the final analysis from our study of the immune checkpoint PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (ATTRACTION-3) at 90 hospitals and cancer centres in Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. We enrolled patients aged 20 years and older with unresectable advanced or recurrent oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (regardless of PD-L1 expression), at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and who were refractory or intolerant to one previous fluoropyrimidine-based and platinum-based chemotherapy and had a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either nivolumab (240 mg for 30 min every 2 weeks) or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 for at least 60 min once per week for 6 weeks then 1 week off; or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 for at least 60 min every 3 weeks), all given intravenously. Treatment continued until disease progression assessed by the investigator per RECIST version 1.1 or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using an interactive web response system with a block size of four and stratified according to geographical region (Japan vs rest of the world), number of organs with metastases, and PD-L1 expression. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, in the intention-to-treat population that included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02569242 , and follow-up for long-term outcomes is ongoing. Findings Between Jan 7, 2016, and May 25, 2017, we assigned 419 patients to treatment: 210 to nivolumab and 209 to chemotherapy. At the time of data cutoff on Nov 12, 2018, median follow-up for overall survival was 10·5 months (IQR 4·5–19·0) in the nivolumab group and 8·0 months (4·6–15·2) in the chemotherapy group. At a minimum follow-up time (ie, time from random assignment of the last patient to data cutoff) of 17·6 months, overall survival was significantly improved in the nivolumab group compared with the chemotherapy group (median 10·9 months, 95% CI 9·2–13·3 vs 8·4 months, 7·2–9·9; hazard ratio for death 0·77, 95% CI 0·62–0·96; p=0·019). 38 (18%) of 209 patients in the nivolumab group had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events compared with 131 (63%) of 208 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were anaemia (four [2%]) in the nivolumab group and decreased neutrophil count (59 [28%]) in the chemotherapy group. Five deaths were deemed treatment-related: two in the nivolumab group (one each of interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis) and three in the chemotherapy group (one each of pneumonia, spinal cord abscess, and interstitial lung disease). Interpretation Nivolumab was associated with a significant improvement in overall survivaland a favourable safety profile compared with chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and might represent a new standard second-line treatment option for these patients. Funding ONO Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Digital pathology and artificial intelligence

Abstract: In modern clinical practice, digital pathology has a crucial role and is increasingly a technological requirement in the scientific laboratory environment. The advent of whole-slide imaging, availability of faster networks, and cheaper storage solutions has made it easier for pathologists to manage digital slide images and share them for clinical use. In parallel, unprecedented advances in machine learning have enabled the synergy of artificial intelligence and digital pathology, which offers image-based diagnosis possibilities that were once limited only to radiology and cardiology. Integration of digital slides into the pathology workflow, advanced algorithms, and computer-aided diagnostic techniques extend the frontiers of the pathologist's view beyond a microscopic slide and enable true utilisation and integration of knowledge that is beyond human limits and boundaries, and we believe there is clear potential for artificial intelligence breakthroughs in the pathology setting. In this Review, we discuss advancements in digital slide-based image diagnosis for cancer along with some challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in digital pathology.

2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Abstract: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at a high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding during anticoagulant therapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group aimed at establishing a global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer last updated its evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in 2016 with a free, web-based mobile phone application, which was subsequently endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a systematic review of the literature published up to December, 2018, are presented along with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation scale methods, with the support of the French National Cancer Institute. These guidelines were reviewed by an expanded international advisory committee and endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Results from head-to-head clinical trials that compared direct oral anticoagulant with low-molecular-weight heparin are also summarised, along with new evidence for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer.

Erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR-positive advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NEJ026): interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Resistance to first-generation or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy develops in almost half of patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after 1 year of treatment. The JO25567 phase 2 trial comparing erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination therapy with erlotinib monotherapy established the activity and manageable toxicity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC. We did a phase 3 trial to validate the results of the JO25567 study and report here the results from the preplanned interim analysis. Methods In this prespecified interim analysis of the randomised, open-label, phase 3 NEJ026 trial, we recruited patients with stage IIIB–IV disease or recurrent, cytologically or histologically confirmed non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR genomic aberrations from 69 centres across Japan. Eligible patients were at least 20 years old, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, no previous chemotherapy for advanced disease, and one or more measurable lesions based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.1). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day plus intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 21 days, or erlotinib 150 mg per day monotherapy. Randomisation was done by minimisation, stratified by sex, smoking status, clinical stage, and EGFR mutation subtype. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This study is ongoing; the data cutoff for this prespecified interim analysis was Sept 21, 2017. Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of treatment and had at least one response evaluation. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000017069. Findings Between June 3, 2015, and Aug 31, 2016, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=114) or erlotinib alone (n=114). 112 patients in each group were evaluable for efficacy, and safety was evaluated in 112 patients in the combination therapy group and 114 in the monotherapy group. Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 7·0–15·7). At the time of interim analysis, median progression-free survival for patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group was 16·9 months (95% CI 14·2–21·0) compared with 13·3 months (11·1–15·3) for patients in the erlotinib group (hazard ratio 0·605, 95% CI 0·417–0·877; p=0·016). 98 (88%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 53 (46%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was rash (23 [21%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group vs 24 [21%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). Nine (8%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and five (4%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events were grade 4 neutropenia (two [2%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group) and grade 4 hepatic dysfunction (one [1%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and one [1%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation The results of this interim analysis showed that bevacizumab plus erlotinib combination therapy improves progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Future studies with longer follow-up, and overall survival and quality-of-life data will be required to further assess the efficacy of this combination in this setting. Funding Chugai Pharmaceutical.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background In the interim analyses of the LATITUDE study, the addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) led to a significant improvement in overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Here, we present long-term survival outcomes and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and ADT from the final analysis of the LATITUDE study. Methods This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 235 sites in 34 countries. Eligible patients (men aged ≥18 years) had newly diagnosed, histologically or cytologically confirmed prostate cancer with metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, and at least two of the three high-risk prognostic factors (Gleason score of ≥8, presence of three or more lesions on bone scan, or presence of measurable visceral metastasis except lymph node metastasis). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) once daily orally plus prednisone (5 mg) once daily orally and ADT (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group) or matching placebos plus ADT (placebo group); each treatment cycle was 28 days. Randomisation was done by a centralised interactive web response system in a country-by-country scheme using permuted block randomisation, stratified by presence of visceral disease and ECOG performance status. The coprimary endpoint of overall survival was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285 and is complete. Findings Between Feb 12, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 1209 patients were screened, of whom ten were ineligible because of study site violations. 1199 patients were randomly assigned to either the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (n=597) or placebo group (n=602). After the results of the first interim analysis (cutoff date Oct 31, 2016), the study was unmasked to patients and investigators, and patients in the placebo group were allowed to cross over to receive abiraterone acetate and prednisone plus ADT treatment as per a protocol amendment (Feb 15, 2017) in an open-label extension phase of the study (up to 18 months from the protocol amendment). This final analysis (data cutoff Aug 15, 2018) was done after a median follow-up of 51·8 months (IQR 47·2–57·0) and 618 deaths (275 [46%] of 597 in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and 343 [57%] of 602 in the placebo group). Overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (median 53·3 months [95% CI 48·2–not reached]) than in the placebo group (36·5 months [33·5–40·0]), with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (95% CI 0·56–0·78; p Interpretation The combination of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with ADT was associated with significantly longer overall survival than placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk mCSPC and had a manageable safety profile. These findings support the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as a standard of care in patients with high-risk mCSPC. Funding Janssen Research & Development.

Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (iLLUMINATE): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Both single-agent ibrutinib and chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab have shown superior efficacy to chlorambucil monotherapy and are standard first-line treatments in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the efficacy of the combination of ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in first-line chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Methods iLLUMINATE is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 74 academic and community hospitals in Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Russia, Turkey, the EU, and the USA in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma, either aged 65 years or older or younger than 65 years with coexisting conditions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation schedule, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and cytogenetics, to receive ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (oral ibrutinib [420 mg once daily continuously] combined with intravenous obinutuzumab [100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, 1000 mg on day 8, and 1000 mg on day 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles, for a total of six cycles]) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil [0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for six cycles] combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). Allocation concealment was achieved using an interactive web response system. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by a masked independent review committee 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 with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02264574), and patient enrolment is complete. Findings Between Oct 6, 2014, and Oct 12, 2015, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (n=113) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=116). After a median follow-up of 31·3 months (IQR 29·4–33·2), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab group (median not reached [95% CI 33·6–non-estimable]) than in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (19·0 months [15·1–22·1]; hazard ratio 0·23; 95% CI 0·15–0·37; p Interpretation Ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab is an efficacious and safe chemotherapy-free combination treatment in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma independent of high-risk features and provides an alternative first-line treatment option for these patients. Funding Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, and Janssen Research and Development.

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib in patients with untreated, EGFR-mutated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (RELAY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Dual blockade of the EGFR and VEGF pathways in EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is supported by preclinical and clinical data, yet the approach is not widely implemented. RELAY assessed erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) standard of care, plus ramucirumab, a human IgG1 VEGFR2 antagonist, or placebo in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Methods This is a worldwide, double-blind, phase 3 trial done in 100 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years or older in Japan and Taiwan) at the time of study entry, had stage IV NSCLC, with an EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del) or exon 21 substitution (Leu858Arg) mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no CNS metastases. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) plus either intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo once every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done by an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence and stratified by sex, geographical region, EGFR mutation type, and EGFR testing method. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02411448, and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up. Findings Between Jan 28, 2016, and Feb 1, 2018, 449 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (n=224) or placebo plus erlotinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up was 20·7 months (IQR 15·8–27·2). At the time of primary analysis, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group (19·4 months [95% CI 15·4–21·6]) than in the placebo plus erlotinib group (12·4 months [11·0–13·5]), with a stratified hazard ratio of 0·59 (95% CI 0·46–0·76; p Interpretation Ramucirumab plus erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the safety profiles of the individual compounds in advanced lung cancer. The RELAY regimen is a viable new treatment option for the initial treatment of EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Funding Eli Lilly.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: an interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Lenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3, and other receptor tyrosine kinases. Pembrolizumab, an antibody targeting PD-1, has moderate efficacy in biomarker-unselected endometrial cancer. We aimed to assess the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma, after establishing the maximum tolerated dose in a phase 1b study. Methods In this open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study done at 11 centres in the USA, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had metastatic endometrial cancer (unselected for microsatellite instability or PD-L1), had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had received no more than two previous systemic therapies, had measurable disease according to the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST), and had a life expectancy of 12 weeks or longer. Patients received 20 mg oral lenvatinib daily plus 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint of this interim analysis was the proportion of patients with an objective response at week 24 as assessed by investigators according to irRECIST in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02501096 . Findings Between Sept 10, 2015, and July 24, 2017, 54 patients were enrolled, 53 of whom were included in the analysis. At the cutoff date for anti-tumour activity data (Dec 15, 2017), median study follow-up was 13·3 months (IQR 6·7–20·1). 21 (39·6% [95% CI 26·5–54·0]) patients had an objective response at week 24. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16 (30%) patients, and one treatment-related death was reported (intracranial haemorrhage). The most frequently reported any-grade treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (31 [58%]), fatigue (29 [55%]), diarrhoea (27 [51%]), and hypothyroidism (25 [47%]). The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (18 [34%]) and diarrhoea (four [8%]). No grade 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported. Five (9%) patients discontinued study treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. Interpretation Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced recurrent endometrial cancer with a safety profile that was similar to those previously reported for lenvatinib and pembrolizumab monotherapies, apart from an increased frequency of hypothyroidism. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab could represent a new potential treatment option for this patient population, and is being investigated in a randomised phase 3 study. Funding Eisai and Merck.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques. Methods: We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1–T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants. Findings: Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2–3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6–3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13–0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group. Interpretation: In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group. Funding: The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

Atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (IMblaze370): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

Abstract: Summary Background Microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer is typically unresponsive to immunotherapy. This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third-line setting. Methods IMblaze 370 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, done at 73 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and disease progression on or intolerance to at least two previous systemic chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. We used permuted-block randomisation (block size four) to assign patients (2:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks), or regorafenib (160 mg orally once daily for days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle). Stratification factors were extended RAS status (wild-type vs mutant) and time since diagnosis of first metastasis ( ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02788279 . Findings Between July 27, 2016, and Jan 19, 2017, 363 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group). At data cutoff (March 9, 2018), median follow-up was 7·3 months (IQR 3·7–13·6). Median overall survival was 8·87 months (95% CI 7·00–10·61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7·10 months (6·05–10·05) with atezolizumab, and 8·51 months (6·41–10·71) with regorafenib; the hazard ratio was 1·00 (95% CI 0·73–1·38; p=0·99) for the combination versus regorafenib and 1·19 (0·83–1·71; p=0·34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib. Grade 3–4 adverse events were reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. The most common all-cause grade 3–4 adverse events in the combination group were diarrhoea (20 [11%] of 179), anaemia (ten [6%]), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (12 [7%]), and fatigue (eight [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 71 (40%) of 179 patients in the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group (sepsis) and one in the regorafenib group (intestinal perforation). Interpretation IMblaze370 did not meet its primary endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib. The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those of the individual drugs. These results underscore the challenge of expanding the benefit of immunotherapy to patients whose tumours have lower baseline levels of immune inflammation, such as those with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech Inc.

Nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (IFCT-1501 MAPS2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 trial

Abstract: Summary Background There is no recommended therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma that has progressed after first-line pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy. Disease control has been less than 30% in all previous studies of second-line drugs. Preliminary results have suggested that anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody could be efficacious in these patients. We thus aimed to prospectively assess the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody alone or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibody in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods This multicentre randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial was done at 21 hospitals in France. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma progressing after first-line or second-line pemetrexed and platinum-based treatments, measurable disease by CT, and life expectancy greater than 12 weeks. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight) every 2 weeks, or intravenous nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus intravenous ipilimumab (1 mg/kg every 6 weeks), given until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Central randomisation was stratified by histology (epithelioid vs non-epithelioid), treatment line (second line vs third line), and chemosensitivity to previous treatment (progression ≥3 months vs Findings Between March 24 and August 25, 2016, 125 eligible patients were recruited and assigned to either nivolumab (n=63) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=62). In the first 108 eligible patients, 12-week disease control was achieved by 24 (44%; 95% CI 31–58) of 54 patients in the nivolumab group and 27 (50%; 37–63) of 54 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. In the intention-to-treat population, 12-week disease control was achieved by 25 (40%; 28–52) of 63 patients in the nivolumab group and 32 (52%; 39–64) of 62 patients in the combination group. Nine (14%) of 63 patients in the nivolumab group and 16 (26%) of 61 patients in the combination group had grade 3–4 toxicities. The most frequent grade 3 adverse events were asthenia (one [2%] in the nivolumab group vs three [5%] in the combination group), asymptomatic increase in aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (none vs four [7%] of each), and asymptomatic lipase increase (two [3%] vs one [2%]). No patients had toxicities leading to death in the nivolumab group, whereas three (5%) of 62 in the combination group did (one fulminant hepatitis, one encephalitis, and one acute kidney failure). Interpretation Anti-PD-1 nivolumab monotherapy or nivolumab plus anti-CTLA-4 ipilimumab combination therapy both showed promising activity in relapsed patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, without unexpected toxicity. These regimens require confirmation in larger clinical trials. Funding French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup.

Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab for HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer (MyPathway): an updated report from a multicentre, open-label, phase 2a, multiple basket study.

Abstract: Summary Background Therapies targeting HER2 have improved clinical outcomes in HER2-positive breast and gastric cancers, and are emerging as potential treatments for HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer. MyPathway evaluates the activity of targeted therapies in non-indicated tumour types with potentially predictive molecular alterations. We aimed to assess the activity of pertuzumab and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods MyPathway is an ongoing, phase 2a, multiple basket study. Patients in this subset analysis were aged 18 years or older and had treatment-refractory, histologically confirmed HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer with measurable or evaluable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, enrolled from 25 hospitals or clinics in 16 states of the USA. Patients received pertuzumab (840 mg loading dose, then 420 mg every 3 weeks, intravenously) and trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks, intravenously). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response based on investigator-reported tumour responses. Analyses were done per protocol. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02091141 . Findings Between Oct 20, 2014, and June 22, 2017, 57 patients with HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in the MyPathway study and deemed eligible for inclusionin this cohort analysis. Among these 57 evaluable patients, as of Aug 1, 2017, one (2%) patient had a complete response and 17 (30%) had partial responses; thus overall 18 of 57 patients achieved an objective response (32%, 95% CI 20–45). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea (19 [33%] of 57 patients), fatigue (18 [32%] patients), and nausea (17 [30%] patients). Grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded in 21 (37%) of 57 patients, most commonly hypokalaemia and abdominal pain (each three [5%] patients). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in ten (18%) patients and two (4%) of these adverse events (ie, chills and infusion-related reaction) were considered treatment related. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Dual HER2-targeted therapy with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab is well tolerated and could represent a therapeutic opportunity for patients with heavily pretreated, HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Niraparib monotherapy for late-line treatment of ovarian cancer (QUADRA): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Late-line treatment options for patients with ovarian cancer are few, with the proportion of patients achieving an overall response typically less than 10%, and median overall survival after third-line therapy of 5–9 months. In this study (QUADRA), we investigated the activity of niraparib monotherapy as the fourth or later line of therapy. Methods QUADRA was a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study that evaluated the safety and activity of niraparib in adult patients (≥18 years) with relapsed, high-grade serous (grade 2 or 3) epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had been treated with three or more previous chemotherapy regimens. The study was done in the USA and Canada, and 56 sites screened patients (50 sites treated at least one patient). Patients received oral niraparib 300 mg once daily continuously, beginning on day 1 and every cycle (28 days) thereafter until disease progression. The primary objective was the proportion of patients achieving an investigator-assessed confirmed overall response in patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumours (including patients with BRCA and without BRCA mutations) sensitive to their last platinum-based therapy who had received three or four previous anticancer therapy regimens (primary efficacy population). Efficacy analyses were additionally done in all dosed patients with measurable disease at baseline. Findings Between April 1, 2015 and Nov 1, 2017, we screened 729 patients for eligibility and enrolled 463 patients, who were initiated on niraparib therapy. At the time of database lock (April 11, 2018), enrolment had closed and the study was ongoing, with 21 patients still on treatment. Patients had received a median of four (IQR 3–5) previous lines of therapy, and the median follow-up for overall survival was 12·2 months (IQR 3·7–22·1). 151 (33%) of 463 patients were resistant and 161 (35%) of 463 patients were refractory to the last administered platinum therapy. 13 (28%) of 47 patients in the primary efficacy population achieved an overall response according to RECIST (95% CI 15·6–42·6; one-sided p=0·00053). The most common drug-related grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (113 [24%] of 463 patients) and thrombocytopenia (95 [21%] of 463 patients). The most common treatment-emergent serious adverse events were small intestinal obstruction (34 [7%] of 463 patients), thrombocytopenia (34 [7%] of 463 patients), and vomiting (27 [6%] of 463 patients). One death due to gastric haemorrhage was considered treatment related. Interpretation We observed clinically relevant activity of niraparib among women with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer, especially in patients with HRD-positive platinum-sensitive disease, which includes not only patients with a BRCA mutation but also a population with BRCA wild-type disease. We identified no new safety signals. Our data support expansion of the treatment indication for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors to include patients with HRD-positive ovarian cancer beyond those with BRCA mutations. Funding Tesaro.

Intensity-modulated fractionated radiotherapy versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer (PACE-B): acute toxicity findings from an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. Methods PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0–2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1–2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01584258 . PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. Findings Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference −1·9 percentage points, 95% CI −6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference −4·2 percentage points, 95% CI −10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. Funding Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer (PANACEA): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b-2 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background HER2-positive breast cancers usually contain large amounts of T-cell infiltrate. We hypothesised that trastuzumab resistance in HER2-positive breast cancer could be mediated by immune mechanisms. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor, added to trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. Methods We did this single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b–2 trial in 11 centres based in five countries. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older, who had advanced, histologically confirmed, HER2-positive breast cancer; documented progression during previous trastuzumab-based therapy; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded metastatic tumour biopsy for central assessment of programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. In phase 1b, we enrolled patients with PD-L1-positive tumours in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation of intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 1b study was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity and recommended phase 2 dose; however, a protocol amendment on Aug 28, 2015, stipulated a flat dose of pembrolizumab of 200 mg every 3 weeks in all Merck-sponsored trials. In phase 2, patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumours were enrolled in parallel cohorts and received the flat dose of pembrolizumab plus standard trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study was the proportion of PD-L1-positive patients achieving an objective response. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02129556, and with EudraCT, number 2013-004770-10, and is closed. Findings Between Feb 2, 2015, and April 5, 2017, six patients were enrolled in phase 1b (n=3 received 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab, n=3 received 10 mg/kg pembrolizumab) and 52 patients in phase 2 (n=40 had PD-L1-positive tumours, n=12 had PD-L1-negative tumours). The data cutoff for this analysis was Aug 7, 2017. During phase 1b, there were no dose-limiting toxicities in the dose cohorts tested. Median follow-up for the phase 2 cohort was 13·6 months (IQR 11·6–18·4) for patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, and 12·2 months (7·9–12·2) for patients with PD-L1-negative tumours. Six (15%, 90% CI 7–29) of 40 PD-L1-positive patients achieved an objective response. There were no objective responders among the PD-L1-negative patients. The most common treatment-related adverse event of any grade was fatigue (12 [21%] of 58 patients). Grade 3–5 adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) of patients, treatment-related grade 3–5 adverse events occurred in 17 (29%), and serious adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) patients. The most commonly occurring serious adverse events were dyspnoea (n=3 [5%]), pneumonitis (n=3 [5%]), pericardial effusion (n=2 [3%]), and upper respiratory infection (n=2 [3%]). There was one treatment-related death due to Lambert-Eaton syndrome in a PD-L1-negative patient during phase 2. Interpretation Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab was safe and showed activity and durable clinical benefit in patients with PD-L1-positive, trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer. Further studies in this breast cancer subtype should focus on a PD-L1-positive population and be done in less heavily pretreated patients. Funding Merck, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial.

Abstract: Summary Background National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines consider 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT for prostate cancer biochemical recurrence localisation after radical prostatectomy, whereas European Association of Urology guidelines recommend prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT. To the best of our knowledge, no prospective head-to-head comparison between these tests has been done so far. The aim of this study was to compare prospectively paired 18F-fluciclovine and PSMA PET-CT scans for localising biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy in patients with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations ( Methods This was a prospective, single-centre, open-label, single-arm comparative study done at University of California Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA, USA). Patients older than 18 years of age with prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and PSA levels ranging from 0·2 to 2·0 ng/mL without any prior salvage therapy and with a Karnofsky performance status of at least 50 were eligible. Patients underwent 18F-fluciclovine (reference test) and PSMA (index test) PET-CT scans within 15 days. Detection rate of biochemical recurrence at the patient level and by anatomical region was the primary endpoint. A statistical power analysis demonstrated that a sample size of 50 patients was needed to show a 22% difference in detection rates in favour of PSMA (test for superiority). Each PET scan was interpreted by three independent masked readers and a consensus majority interpretation was generated (two vs one) to determine positive findings. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02940262, and is complete. Findings Between Feb 26, 2018, and Sept 20, 2018, 143 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 50 patients were enrolled into the study. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 7–9). The primary endpoint was met; detection rates were significantly lower with 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT (13 [26%; 95% CI 15–40] of 50) than with PSMA PET-CT (28 [56%; 41–70] of 50), with an odds ratio (OR) of 4·8 (95% CI 1·6–19·2; p=0·0026) at the patient level; in the subanalysis of the pelvic nodes region (four [8%; 2–19] with 18F-fluciclovine vs 15 [30%; 18–45] with PSMA PET-CT; OR 12·0 [1·8–513·0], p=0·0034); and in the subanalysis of any extrapelvic lesions (none [0%; 0–6] vs eight [16%; 7–29]; OR non-estimable [95% CI non-estimable], p=0·0078). Interpretation With higher detection rates, PSMA should be the PET tracer of choice when PET-CT imaging is considered for subsequent treatment management decisions in patients with prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and low PSA concentrations (≤2·0 ng/mL). Further research is needed to investigate whether higher detection rates translate into improved oncological outcomes. Funding None.

Comparison of the accuracy of human readers versus machine-learning algorithms for pigmented skin lesion classification: an open, web-based, international, diagnostic study.

Abstract: Summary Background Whether machine-learning algorithms can diagnose all pigmented skin lesions as accurately as human experts is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithms with human readers for all clinically relevant types of benign and malignant pigmented skin lesions. Methods For this open, web-based, international, diagnostic study, human readers were asked to diagnose dermatoscopic images selected randomly in 30-image batches from a test set of 1511 images. The diagnoses from human readers were compared with those of 139 algorithms created by 77 machine-learning labs, who participated in the International Skin Imaging Collaboration 2018 challenge and received a training set of 10 015 images in advance. The ground truth of each lesion fell into one of seven predefined disease categories: intraepithelial carcinoma including actinic keratoses and Bowen's disease; basal cell carcinoma; benign keratinocytic lesions including solar lentigo, seborrheic keratosis and lichen planus-like keratosis; dermatofibroma; melanoma; melanocytic nevus; and vascular lesions. The two main outcomes were the differences in the number of correct specific diagnoses per batch between all human readers and the top three algorithms, and between human experts and the top three algorithms. Findings Between Aug 4, 2018, and Sept 30, 2018, 511 human readers from 63 countries had at least one attempt in the reader study. 283 (55·4%) of 511 human readers were board-certified dermatologists, 118 (23·1%) were dermatology residents, and 83 (16·2%) were general practitioners. When comparing all human readers with all machine-learning algorithms, the algorithms achieved a mean of 2·01 (95% CI 1·97 to 2·04; p Interpretation State-of-the-art machine-learning classifiers outperformed human experts in the diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions and should have a more important role in clinical practice. However, a possible limitation of these algorithms is their decreased performance for out-of-distribution images, which should be addressed in future research. Funding None.

Radiotherapy versus transoral robotic surgery and neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (ORATOR): an open-label, phase 2, randomised trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with concurrent neck dissection has supplanted radiotherapy in the USA as the most common treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to evaluate differences in quality of life (QOL) 1 year after treatment. Methods The ORATOR trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, international, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised study. Patients were enrolled at six hospitals in Canada and Australia. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores of 0–2, and with T1–T2, N0–2 (≤4 cm) OPSCC tumour types to radiotherapy (70 Gy, with chemotherapy if N1–2) or TORS plus neck dissection (with or without adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, based on pathology). Following stratification by p16 status, patients were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of four. The primary endpoint was swallowing-related QOL at 1 year as established using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) score, powered to detect a 10-point improvement (a clinically meaningful change) in the TORS plus neck dissection group. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01590355) and is active, but not currently recruiting. Findings 68 patients were randomly assigned (34 per group) between Aug 10, 2012, and June 9, 2017. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 20–33) for the radiotherapy group and 29 months (23–43) for the TORS plus neck dissection group. MDADI total scores at 1 year were mean 86·9 (SD 11·4) in the radiotherapy group versus 80·1 (13·0) in the TORS plus neck dissection group (p=0·042). There were more cases of neutropenia (six [18%] of 34 patients vs none of 34), hearing loss (13 [38%] vs five [15%]), and tinnitus (12 [35%] vs two [6%]) reported in the radiotherapy group than in the TORS plus neck dissection group, and more cases of trismus in the TORS plus neck dissection group (nine [26%] vs one [3%]). The most common adverse events in the radiotherapy group were dysphagia (n=6), hearing loss (n=6), and mucositis (n=4), all grade 3, and in the TORS plus neck dissection group, dysphagia (n=9, all grade 3) and there was one death caused by bleeding after TORS. Interpretation Patients treated with radiotherapy showed superior swallowing-related QOL scores 1 year after treatment, although the difference did not represent a clinically meaningful change. Toxicity patterns differed between the groups. Patients with OPSCC should be informed about both treatment options. Funding Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Grant (#701842), Ontario Institute for Cancer Research Clinician-Scientist research grant, and the Wolfe Surgical Research Professorship in the Biology of Head and Neck Cancers grant.

Identification of the optimal combination dosing schedule of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab in macroscopic stage III melanoma (OpACIN-neo): a multicentre, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial.

Abstract: Summary Background The outcome of patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma is poor. Neoadjuvant treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab at the standard dosing schedule induced pathological responses in a high proportion of patients in two small independent early-phase trials, and no patients with a pathological response have relapsed after a median follow up of 32 months. However, toxicity of the standard ipilimumab plus nivolumab dosing schedule was high, preventing its broader clinical use. The aim of the OpACIN-neo trial was to identify a dosing schedule of ipilimumab plus nivolumab that is less toxic but equally effective. Methods OpACIN-neo is a multicentre, open-label, phase 2, randomised, controlled trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0–1, had resectable stage III melanoma involving lymph nodes only, and measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were enrolled from three medical centres in Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, and were randomly assigned (1:1:1), stratified by site, to one of three neoadjuvant dosing schedules: group A, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus nivolumab 1 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; group B, two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks intravenously; or group C, two cycles of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks directly followed by two cycles of nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks intravenously. The investigators, site staff, and patients were aware of the treatment assignment during the study participation. Pathologists were masked to treatment allocation and all other data. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with grade 3–4 immune-related toxicity within the first 12 weeks and the proportion of patients achieving a radiological objective response and pathological response at 6 weeks. Analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02977052, and is ongoing with an additional extension cohort and to complete survival analysis. Findings Between Nov 24, 2016 and June 28, 2018, 105 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 89 (85%) eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Three patients were excluded after randomisation because they were found to be ineligible, and 86 received at least one dose of study drug; 30 patients in group A, 30 in group B, and 26 in group C (accrual to this group was closed early upon advice of the Data Safety Monitoring Board on June 4, 2018 because of severe adverse events). Within the first 12 weeks, grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events were observed in 12 (40%) of 30 patients in group A, six (20%) of 30 in group B, and 13 (50%) of 26 in group C. The difference in grade 3–4 toxicity between group B and A was −20% (95% CI −46 to 6; p=0·158) and between group C and group A was 10% (−20 to 40; p=0·591). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were elevated liver enzymes in group A (six [20%)]) and colitis in group C (five [19%]); in group B, none of the grade 3–4 adverse events were seen in more than one patient. One patient (in group A) died 9·5 months after the start of treatment due to the consequences of late-onset immune-related encephalitis, which was possibly treatment-related. 19 (63% [95% CI 44–80]) of 30 patients in group A, 17 (57% [37–75]) of 30 in group B, and nine (35% [17–56]) of 26 in group C achieved a radiological objective response, while pathological responses occurred in 24 (80% [61–92]) patients in group A, 23 (77% [58–90]) in group B, and 17 (65% [44–83]) in group C. Interpretation OpACIN-neo identified a tolerable neoadjuvant dosing schedule (group B: two cycles of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg) that induces a pathological response in a high proportion of patients and might be suitable for broader clinical use. When more mature data confirm these early observations, this schedule should be tested in randomised phase 3 studies versus adjuvant therapies, which are the current standard-of-care systemic therapy for patients with stage III melanoma. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy combinations in metastatic breast cancer.

Abstract: Immunotherapy is emerging as a new treatment modality in breast cancer. After long-standing use of endocrine therapy and targeted biological therapy, improved understanding of immune evasion by cancer cells and the discovery of selective immune checkpoint inhibitors have created novel opportunities for treatment. Single-drug therapies with monoclonal antibodies against programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) have shown little efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer, in part because of the low number of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in most breast cancers. There is growing interest in the development of combinations of immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapies for metastatic breast cancer. In this Personal View, we review the available data and ongoing efforts to establish the safety and efficacy of immunotherapeutic approaches in combination with HER2-targeted therapy, inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, angiogenesis inhibitors, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, as well as chemotherapy and radiotherapy.