Journal of Clinical Oncology最新文献

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling pathway plays a role in the pathogenesis of selected patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). In the phase II PAPMET trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02761057), cabozantinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved objective response rate compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced PRCC. Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) analysis. In this multicenter, randomized phase II, open-label trial, 147 patients with advanced PRCC who have received up to one previous therapy (excluding vascular endothelial growth factor-directed agents) were assigned to sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib, or savolitinib. Ultimately, savolitinib and crizotinib arms were closed because of futility. With a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median OS was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.0 to 28.1) with cabozantinib and 17.3 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 21.8) with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.36; P = .46). The OS landmark estimates for cabozantinib and sunitinib were 50% versus 39% at 24 months and 32% versus 28% at 36 months. In conclusion, we observed no significant difference in OS across treatment arms. Although cabozantinib represents a well-supported option for advanced PRCC, the lack of survival benefit underscores the need to develop novel therapies for this disease.

Purpose: Sclerotic chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) represents a highly morbid and refractory form of cGVHD, and novel therapies for sclerotic cGVHD are critically needed. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib in patients with corticosteroid refractory sclerotic cGVHD.

Patients and methods: In a single-arm multicenter phase II trial (N = 47), adults with sclerotic cGVHD refractory to corticosteroids and ≥one additional line of systemic therapy for cGVHD received ruxolitinib for ≥six months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03616184). The primary end point was complete or partial response (PR) in skin and/or joint defined according to the 2014 National Institute of Health cGVHD Consensus Criteria.

Results: Following the use of ruxolitinib for a median of 11 months, PR in skin and/or joints was noted in 49% (95% CI, 34 to 64) at 6 months, with 45% having joint and fascia response and 19% having skin response. The duration of skin/joint response was 77% (95% CI, 48 to 91) at 12 months. Overall cGVHD PR was noted in 47% (95% CI, 32 to 61). Improvement in Lee Symptom Scale summary and skin subscale scores was noted in 38% of patients. With a cumulative incidence of treatment failure of 20.8% (95% CI, 10.0 to 34.1), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) of 2.2% (95% CI, 0.17 to 10.3), and no recurrent malignancy, failure-free survival (FFS) was 77.1% (95% CI, 61.3 to 87.0) at 12 months. Ruxolitinib was overall well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Conclusion: The use of ruxolitinib was associated with relatively high rates of skin/joint responses and overall cGVHD responses, improvement in patient-reported outcomes, low NRM, and high FFS in patients with refractory sclerotic cGVHD. Ruxolitinib offers an effective treatment option for refractory sclerotic cGVHD.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Purpose: NRG-RTOG0617 demonstrated a detrimental effect of uniform high-dose radiation in stage III non-small cell lung cancer. NRG-RTOG1106/ECOG-ACRIN6697 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01507428), a randomized phase II trial, studied whether midtreatment ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) can guide individualized/adaptive dose-intensified radiotherapy (RT) to improve and predict outcomes in patients with this disease.

Materials and methods: Patients fit for concurrent chemoradiation were randomly assigned (1:2) to standard (60 Gy/30 fractions) or FDG-PET-guided adaptive treatment, stratified by substage, primary tumor size, and histology. All patients had midtreatment FDG-PET/CT; adaptive arm patients had an individualized, intensified boost RT dose to residual metabolically active areas. The primary therapeutic end point was 2-year centrally reviewed freedom from local-regional progression (FFLP), defined as no progression in or near the planning target volume and/or regional nodes. FFLP was analyzed on a modified intent-to-treat population at a one-sided Z-test significance level of 0.15. The primary imaging end point was centrally reviewed change in SUV_peak from baseline to midtreatment; its association with FFLP was assessed using the two-sided Wald test on the basis of Cox regression.

Results: Of 138 patients enrolled, 127 were eligible. Adaptive-arm patients received a mean 71 Gy in 30 fractions, with mean lung dose 17.9 Gy. There was no significant difference in centrally reviewed 2-year FFLP (59.5% and 54.6% in standard and adaptive arms; P = .66). There were no significant differences in protocol-specified grade 3 toxicities, survival, or progression-free survival (P > .4). Median SUV_peak and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) in the adaptive arm decreased 49% and 54%, from pre-RT to mid-RT PET. However, ΔSUV_peak and ΔMTV were not associated with FFLP (hazard ratios, 0.997; P = .395 and .461).

Conclusion: Midtreatment PET-adapted RT dose escalation as given in this study was safe and feasible but did not improve efficacy outcomes.

Purpose: Doublet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine (FP) and oxaliplatin (OX) plus bevacizumab (BEV) is a standard regimen for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). However, the efficacy of adding OX to FP plus BEV (FP + BEV) remains unclear for older patients, a population for whom FP + BEV is standard. We aimed to confirm the superiority of adding OX to FP + BEV for this population.

Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III trial was conducted at 42 institutions in Japan. Patients with unresectable MCRC age 70-74 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 2 and those 75 years and older with ECOG-PS 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to an FP + BEV arm or an OX addition (FP + BEV + OX) arm. Fluorouracil plus levofolinate calcium or capecitabine was declared before enrollment. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (identifier: jRCTs031180145).

Results: Between September 2012 and March 2019, 251 patients were randomly assigned to the FP + BEV arm (n = 125) and the FP + BEV + OX arm (n = 126). The median age was 80 and 79 years in the respective arm. The median PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 10.3) in the FP + BEV arm and 10.0 months (9.0 to 11.2) in the FP + BEV + OX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [90.5% CI, 0.67 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .086). The median overall survival was 21.3 months (18.7 to 24.3) in the FP + BEV arm and 19.7 months (15.5 to 25.5) in the FP + BEV + OX arm (HR, 1.05 [0.81 to 1.37]). The proportion of any grade ≥3 adverse events was higher in the FP + BEV + OX arm (52% v 69%). There was one treatment-related death in the FP + BEV arm and three in the FP + BEV + OX arm.

Conclusion: No benefit of adding OX to FP + BEV as first-line treatment was demonstrated in older patients with MCRC. FP + BEV is recommended for this population.

ASCO Rapid Recommendation Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual. The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information (Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, online only).

Purpose: The conduct of cancer clinical research in the United States is supported by both private and public sponsors. Industry aims to obtain new drug approvals. Federally-sponsored trials examine a broad set of research questions that are not typically addressed by industry; these trials, which are also more commonly conducted in diverse populations, were recently shown to have contributed to gains of 14 million life-years for patients with cancer. Despite the different mandates, the proportion of patients who might participate in industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored cancer studies is unknown.

Methods: We evaluated trial enrollment patterns from 2008 to 2022 using ClinicalTrials.gov data. The ratio of enrollments attributable to industry versus federal sponsors was estimated. A large set of estimates on the basis of different combinations of study characteristics were generated. Point estimates were determined as the mean of combinations and confidence limits by the IQR. Five-year intervals were examined to smooth annual variation.

Results: In total, N = 26,080 studies were examined. The estimated enrollment ratio from 2018 to 2022 for all industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored trials was 8.1 (IQR, 6.2-9.9). For adult trials, the ratio increased from 4.8 (IQR, 4.4-5.3) during 2008-2012 to 9.6 (IQR, 7.4-11.8) during 2018-2022; for trials in children, the ratio increased from 0.7 (IQR, 0.6-0.7) to 2.3 (IQR, 1.8-2.7). Despite increasing cancer incidence, enrollment counts for federally-sponsored trials were flat over the study period.

Conclusion: In the United States, there is a growing reliance on industry to conduct cancer clinical research. Underinvestment in federally-sponsored research comes at a cost for both patients and researchers, with lost opportunities for scientific, clinical, and population advances.