Summary Background Malignant cells of classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are characterised by genetic alterations at the 9p24.1 locus, leading to overexpression of PD-1 ligands and evasion of immune surveillance. In a phase 1b study, nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, produced a high response in patients with relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Methods In this ongoing, single-arm phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who had failed to respond to autologous stem-cell transplantation and had either relapsed after or failed to respond to brentuximab vedotin, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, were enrolled from 34 hospitals and academic centres across Europe and North America. Patients were given nivolumab intravenously over 60 min at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. The primary endpoint was objective response following a prespecified minimum follow-up period of 6 months, assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC). All patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02181738. Findings Among 80 treated patients recruited between Aug 26, 2014, and Feb 20, 2015, the median number of previous therapies was four (IQR 4–7). At a median follow-up of 8·9 months (IQR 7·8–9·9), 53 (66·3%, 95% CI 54·8–76·4) of 80 patients achieved an IRRC-assessed objective response. The most common drug-related adverse events (those that occurred in ≥15% of patients) included fatigue (20 [25%] patients), infusion-related reaction (16 [20%]), and rash (13 [16%]). The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (four [5%] patients) and increased lipase concentrations (four [5%]). The most common serious adverse event (any grade) was pyrexia (three [4%] patients). Three patients died during the study; none of these deaths were judged to be treatment related. Interpretation Nivolumab resulted in frequent responses with an acceptable safety profile in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who progressed after autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Therefore, nivolumab might be a new treatment option for a patient population with a high unmet need. Ongoing follow-up will help to assess the durability of response. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit–risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. Methods This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01515189. Findings Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6–42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9–29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6–17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9–13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 [10%] of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 [6%] of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 [5%] vs nine [2%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 [3%] vs two [1%]), and hypophysitis (ten [3%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. Interpretation In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background How best to treat rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration after radical prostatectomy is an urgent clinical question. Salvage radiotherapy delays the need for more aggressive treatment such as long-term androgen suppression, but fewer than half of patients benefit from it. We aimed to establish the effect of adding short-term androgen suppression at the time of salvage radiotherapy on biochemical outcome and overall survival in men with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. Methods This open-label, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, was done in 43 French study centres. We enrolled men (aged ≥18 years) who had received previous treatment for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate (but no previous androgen deprivation therapy or pelvic radiotherapy), and who had stage pT2, pT3, or pT4a (bladder neck involvement only) in patients who had rising PSA of 0·2 to less than 2·0 μg/L following radical prostatectomy, without evidence of clinical disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive web response system to standard salvage radiotherapy (three-dimensional [3D] conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, of 66 Gy in 33 fractions 5 days a week for 7 weeks) or radiotherapy plus short-term androgen suppression using 10·8 mg goserelin by subcutaneous injection on the first day of irradiation and 3 months later. Randomisation was stratified using a permuted block method according to investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00423475. Findings Between Oct 19, 2006, and March 30, 2010, 743 patients were randomly assigned, 374 to radiotherapy alone and 369 to radiotherapy plus goserelin. Patients assigned to radiotherapy plus goserelin were significantly more likely than patients in the radiotherapy alone group to be free of biochemical progression or clinical progression at 5 years (80% [95% CI 75–84] vs 62% [57–67]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38–0·66; p<0·0001). No additional late adverse events occurred in patients receiving short-term androgen suppression compared with those who received radiotherapy alone. The most frequently occuring acute adverse events related to goserelin were hot flushes, sweating, or both (30 [8%] of 366 patients had a grade 2 or worse event; 30 patients [8%] had hot flushes and five patients [1%] had sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group vs none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group). Three (8%) of 366 patients had grade 3 or worse hot flushes and one patient had grade 3 or worse sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group versus none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group. The most common late adverse events of grade 3 or worse were genitourinary events (29 [8%] in the radiotherapy alone group vs 26 [7%] in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group) and sexual disorders (20 [5%] vs 30 [8%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Adding short-term androgen suppression to salvage radiotherapy benefits men who have had radical prostatectomy and whose PSA rises after a postsurgical period when it is undetectable. Radiotherapy combined with short-term androgen suppression could be considered as a reasonable option in this population. Funding French Ministry of Health, AstraZeneca, and La Ligue Contre le Cancer.
Summary Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Methods The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00433563 ) and is currently in follow-up. Findings Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). Interpretation Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. Funding Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).
Summary Although liver transplantation is a widely accepted treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), much controversy remains and there is no generally accepted set of guidelines. An international consensus conference was held on Dec 2–4, 2010, in Zurich, Switzerland, with the aim of reviewing current practice regarding liver transplantation in patients with HCC and to develop internationally accepted statements and guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the Danish model. 19 working groups of experts prepared evidence-based reviews according to the Oxford classification, and drafted recommendations answering 19 specific questions. An independent jury of nine members was appointed to review these submissions and make final recommendations, after debates with the experts and audience at the conference. This report presents the final 37 statements and recommendations, covering assessment of candidates for liver transplantation, criteria for listing in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, role of tumour downstaging, management of patients on the waiting list, role of living donation, and post-transplant management.
The oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1–21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719). Between Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5–14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0–13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8–9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6–5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37–0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6–9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9–7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26–1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group. Progression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Summary The management of primary CNS lymphoma is one of the most controversial topics in neuro-oncology because of the complexity of the disease and the very few controlled studies available. In 2013, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology created a multidisciplinary task force to establish evidence-based guidelines for immunocompetent adults with primary CNS lymphoma. In this Review, we present these guidelines, which provide consensus considerations and recommendations for diagnosis, assessment, staging, and treatment of primary CNS lymphoma. Specifically, we address aspects of care related to surgery, systemic and intrathecal chemotherapy, intensive chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation, radiotherapy, intraocular manifestations, and management of elderly patients. The guidelines should aid clinicians in their daily practice and decision making, and serve as a basis for future investigations in neuro-oncology.