西妥昔单抗与甲氨蝶呤对比用于无法手术的复发性或转移性头颈癌老年体弱患者的一线治疗(ELAN UNFIT):一项随机、开放标签的 3 期试验

IF 13.4 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Lancet Healthy Longevity Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00284-2
Prof Joël Guigay MD , Cécile Ortholan MD , Damien Vansteene MD , Didier Cupissol MD , Caroline Even MD , Marie-Christine Kaminsky MD , Christian Sire MD , Emmanuel Blot MD , Philippe Debourdeau MD , Laurence Bozec MD , Esma Saada-Bouzid MD , Jérôme Fayette MD , Pierre Dalloz MD , Yoann Pointreau MD , Hervé Le Caer MD , Claire Falandry MD , Laurence Digue MD , Antoine Braccini MD , Stéphane Lopez MD , Pierre Guillet MD , Anne Aupérin PhD
{"title":"西妥昔单抗与甲氨蝶呤对比用于无法手术的复发性或转移性头颈癌老年体弱患者的一线治疗(ELAN UNFIT):一项随机、开放标签的 3 期试验","authors":"Prof Joël Guigay MD ,&nbsp;Cécile Ortholan MD ,&nbsp;Damien Vansteene MD ,&nbsp;Didier Cupissol MD ,&nbsp;Caroline Even MD ,&nbsp;Marie-Christine Kaminsky MD ,&nbsp;Christian Sire MD ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Blot MD ,&nbsp;Philippe Debourdeau MD ,&nbsp;Laurence Bozec MD ,&nbsp;Esma Saada-Bouzid MD ,&nbsp;Jérôme Fayette MD ,&nbsp;Pierre Dalloz MD ,&nbsp;Yoann Pointreau MD ,&nbsp;Hervé Le Caer MD ,&nbsp;Claire Falandry MD ,&nbsp;Laurence Digue MD ,&nbsp;Antoine Braccini MD ,&nbsp;Stéphane Lopez MD ,&nbsp;Pierre Guillet MD ,&nbsp;Anne Aupérin PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00284-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> (<span>NCT01884623</span><svg><path></path></svg>) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8–52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0–2·1] in the cetuximab group <em>vs</em> 1·9 months [1·1–2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66–1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé.</p></div><div><h3>Translation</h3><p>For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34394,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Healthy Longevity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666756823002842/pdfft?md5=d9483239644eb9f5b2012abb44d515e5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666756823002842-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cetuximab versus methotrexate in first-line treatment of older, frail patients with inoperable recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (ELAN UNFIT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial\",\"authors\":\"Prof Joël Guigay MD ,&nbsp;Cécile Ortholan MD ,&nbsp;Damien Vansteene MD ,&nbsp;Didier Cupissol MD ,&nbsp;Caroline Even MD ,&nbsp;Marie-Christine Kaminsky MD ,&nbsp;Christian Sire MD ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Blot MD ,&nbsp;Philippe Debourdeau MD ,&nbsp;Laurence Bozec MD ,&nbsp;Esma Saada-Bouzid MD ,&nbsp;Jérôme Fayette MD ,&nbsp;Pierre Dalloz MD ,&nbsp;Yoann Pointreau MD ,&nbsp;Hervé Le Caer MD ,&nbsp;Claire Falandry MD ,&nbsp;Laurence Digue MD ,&nbsp;Antoine Braccini MD ,&nbsp;Stéphane Lopez MD ,&nbsp;Pierre Guillet MD ,&nbsp;Anne Aupérin PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00284-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m<sup>2</sup> intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> (<span>NCT01884623</span><svg><path></path></svg>) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8–52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0–2·1] in the cetuximab group <em>vs</em> 1·9 months [1·1–2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66–1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause).</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé.</p></div><div><h3>Translation</h3><p>For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Healthy Longevity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666756823002842/pdfft?md5=d9483239644eb9f5b2012abb44d515e5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666756823002842-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Healthy Longevity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666756823002842\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Healthy Longevity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666756823002842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景目前,对于患有复发性或转移性头颈部鳞状细胞癌的年老体弱患者还没有确定的标准治疗方法。我们的目的是比较西妥昔单抗与甲氨蝶呤(参考方案)在这一人群中的疗效和安全性。方法这项随机、开放标签的 3 期试验在法国 20 家医院进行。年龄在70岁或70岁以上、经ELAN老年学评估为体弱、头颈部鳞状细胞癌复发或转移的一线治疗患者,以及东部合作肿瘤学组(ECOG)表现状态为0-2的患者均符合纳入条件。患者被随机分配(1:1)接受西妥昔单抗 500 mg/m2 静脉注射,每两周一次,或甲氨蝶呤 40 mg/m2 静脉注射,每周一次,并根据 ECOG 表 现状态、疾病演变类型、查尔森综合指数评分、血清白蛋白浓度和老年病学咨询情况进行最小化。为避免确定性最小化并确保分配隐藏,患者以 0-80 的概率被分配到最能减少不平衡的治疗方案中。治疗一直持续到疾病进展或出现不可接受的毒性(以先发生者为准)。主要终点是无失败生存期(定义为从随机分配到疾病进展、死亡、停止治疗或日常生活活动能力下降 2 分或 2 分以上(以先发生者为准)的时间),并在意向治疗人群中进行分析。在164例患者中,预计有151例治疗失败,才能检测出0-625的危险比(HR),α误差为0-05,功率为80%。根据无失败生存率,计划在观察到约 80 例失败时进行无用性中期分析。安全性分析包括所有至少接受过一次治疗的患者。该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01884623)上注册,中期分析后因无效而停止。研究结果在2013年11月7日至2018年4月23日期间,共有82名患者入组(西妥昔单抗组41人,甲氨蝶呤组41人);其中60人(73%)为男性,37人(45%)年龄在80岁或以上,35人(43%)的ECOG表现为2级,36人(44%)患有转移性疾病。在中期分析时,因无效而停止了注册。最终分析结果显示,中位随访时间为 43-3 个月(IQR 30-8-52-1)。数据截止时,82 例患者全部治疗失败;两组患者的无失败生存期无显著差异(西妥昔单抗组中位生存期为 1-4 个月 [95% CI 1-0-2-1] ,甲氨蝶呤组为 1-9 个月 [1-1-2-6];调整后 HR 为 1-03 [95% CI 0-66-1-61],P=0-89)。西妥昔单抗组出现3级或更严重不良事件的患者比例为63%(41例中有26例),甲氨蝶呤组为73%(41例中有30例)。西妥昔单抗组最常见的3-4级不良反应是疲劳(41例患者中有4例[10%])、肺部感染(4例[10%])和痤疮样皮疹(4例[10%])、甲氨蝶呤组的不良反应为疲劳(41 名患者中有 9 名[22%])、γ-谷氨酰转移酶升高(7 名[17%])、纳氏贫血症(4 名[10%])、贫血(4 名[10%])、白细胞减少(4 名[10%])和中性粒细胞减少(4 名[10%])。西妥昔单抗组出现严重不良事件的患者比例为44%(41例中有18例),甲氨蝶呤组为39%(41例中有16例)。西妥昔单抗组有四名患者出现致命不良事件(败血症、意识下降、肺水肿和死因不明),甲氨蝶呤组也有两名患者出现致命不良事件(呼吸困难和死因不明)。ECOG表现为2级的患者无法从这些系统疗法中获益。对于患有复发性或转移性头颈部鳞状细胞癌的年老体弱患者,应在进行初步老年病学评估(如ELAN老年病学评估)后,探索包括免疫疗法在内的新治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cetuximab versus methotrexate in first-line treatment of older, frail patients with inoperable recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (ELAN UNFIT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background

At present, there is no established standard treatment for frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cetuximab to those of methotrexate (the reference regimen) in this population.

Methods

This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 20 hospitals in France. Patients aged 70 years or older, assessed as frail by the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation, with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the first-line setting and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cetuximab 500 mg/m2 intravenously every 2 weeks or methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously every week, with minimisation by ECOG performance status, type of disease evolution, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, serum albumin concentration, and geriatrician consultation. To avoid deterministic minimisation and assure allocation concealment, patients were allocated with a probability of 0·80 to the treatment that most reduced the imbalance. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival (defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression, death, discontinuation of treatment, or loss of 2 or more points on the Activities in Daily Living scale, whichever occurred first) and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. 151 failures expected out of 164 patients were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·625 with 0·05 alpha error, with 80% power. A futility interim analysis was planned when approximately 80 failures were observed, based on failure-free survival. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01884623) and was stopped for futility after the interim analysis.

Findings

Between Nov 7, 2013, and April 23, 2018, 82 patients were enrolled (41 to the cetuximab group and 41 to the methotrexate group); 60 (73%) were male, 37 (45%) were aged 80 years or older, 35 (43%) had an ECOG performance status of 2, and 36 (44%) had metastatic disease. Enrolment was stopped for futility at the interim analysis. At the final analysis, median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 30·8–52·1). At data cutoff, all 82 patients had failure; failure-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups (median 1·4 months [95% CI 1·0–2·1] in the cetuximab group vs 1·9 months [1·1–2·6] in the methotrexate group; adjusted HR 1·03 [95% CI 0·66–1·61], p=0·89). The frequency of patients who had grade 3 or worse adverse events was 63% (26 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 73% (30 of 41) in the methotrexate group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events in the cetuximab group were fatigue (four [10%] of 41 patients), lung infection (four [10%]), and rash acneiform (four [10%]), and those in the methotrexate group were fatigue (nine [22%] of 41), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (seven [17%]), natraemia disorder (four [10%]), anaemia (four [10%]), leukopenia (four [10%]), and neutropenia (four [10%]). The frequency of patients who had serious adverse events was 44% (18 of 41) in the cetuximab group and 39% (16 of 41) in the methotrexate group. Four patients presented with a fatal adverse event in the cetuximab group (sepsis, decreased level of consciousness, pulmonary oedema, and death of unknown cause) as did two patients in the methotrexate group (dyspnoea and death of unknown cause).

Interpretation

The study showed no improvement in failure-free survival with cetuximab versus methotrexate. Patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 did not benefit from these systemic therapies. New treatment options including immunotherapy should be explored in frail older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, after an initial geriatric evaluation, such as the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation.

Funding

French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), GEMLUC, GEFLUC, and Merck Santé.

Translation

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lancet Healthy Longevity
Lancet Healthy Longevity GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
2.30%
发文量
192
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Healthy Longevity, a gold open-access journal, focuses on clinically-relevant longevity and healthy aging research. It covers early-stage clinical research on aging mechanisms, epidemiological studies, and societal research on changing populations. The journal includes clinical trials across disciplines, particularly in gerontology and age-specific clinical guidelines. In line with the Lancet family tradition, it advocates for the rights of all to healthy lives, emphasizing original research likely to impact clinical practice or thinking. Clinical and policy reviews also contribute to shaping the discourse in this rapidly growing discipline.
期刊最新文献
Early geriatric assessment and management in older patients with Clostridioides difficile infection in Denmark (CLODIfrail): a randomised trial. The views and experiences of older adults regarding digital mental health interventions: a systematic review ofqualitative studies. Effect of oral health on functional disability and mortality in older adults in Japan: a cohort study. Defining the role and reach of a geriatrician. The UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-30) for people living with HIV.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1