To report the long-term results of the French Genitourinary Study Group (GETUG)-01 study in terms of event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) and assess the potential interaction between ...hormonotherapy and pelvic nodes irradiation.
Between December 1998 and June 2004, 446 patients with T1b-T3, N0pNx, M0 prostate carcinoma were randomly assigned to either pelvic nodes and prostate or prostate-only radiation therapy. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: "low risk" (T1-T2 and Gleason score 6 and prostate-specific antigen <3× the upper normal limit of the laboratory) (92 patients) versus "high risk" (T3 or Gleason score >6 or prostate-specific antigen >3× the upper normal limit of the laboratory). Short-term 6-month neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal therapy was allowed only for high-risk patients. Radiation therapy was delivered with a 3-dimensional conformal technique, using a 4-field technique for the pelvic volume (46 Gy). The total dose recommended to the prostate moved from 66 Gy to 70 Gy during the course of the study. Criteria for EFS included biologic prostate-specific antigen recurrences and/or a local or metastatic progression.
With a median follow-up of 11.4 years, the 10-year OS and EFS were similar in the 2 treatment arms. A higher but nonsignificant EFS was observed in the low-risk subgroup in favor of pelvic nodes radiation therapy (77.2% vs 62.5%; P=.18). A post hoc subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of pelvic irradiation when the risk of lymph node involvement was <15% (Roach formula). This benefit seemed to be limited to patients who did not receive hormonal therapy.
Pelvic nodes irradiation did not statistically improve EFS or OS in the whole population but may be beneficial in selected low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients treated with exclusive radiation therapy.
Summary Background The effect of imatinib discontinuation on progression-free survival and overall survival in long-lasting responders with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is ...unknown. We assessed treatment interruption in patients with non-progressive disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria after 3 years of imatinib in a randomised trial. Methods In this open-label national multicentre phase 3 study in France, patients with GIST free of progression after 3 years of imatinib 400 mg/day were randomly assigned to continue or interrupt imatinib. Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and four patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. An interim analysis was planned after the first 50 randomly assigned patients. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle—ie, all patients randomly assigned to a study group were included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov , number NCT00367861. Findings 434 patients were enrolled in this trial between May 27, 2002, and May 5, 2009. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, 50 patients with non-progressive disease who had received 3 years of treatment with imatinib were randomly assigned to continue or interrupt their treatment, 25 patients in each group. By Dec 7, 2009, after a median follow-up of 35 months (95% CI 33–38) after random assignment, 2-year progression-free survival was 80% (95% CI 58–91) in the continuation group and 16% (5–33) in the interruption group (p<0·0001). There was no difference in adverse events grade 3 or greater (oedema and asthenia) between the two groups. Interpretation Imatinib interruption after 3 years in responders results in a high risk of rapid progression in patients with advanced GIST. Discontinuation of imatinib is not recommended outside clinical trials unless patients experience significant toxic effects. Funding Conticanet, the Ligue Contre Le Cancer du Rhone, and Novartis.
Summary Background Combining targeted treatments for renal cell carcinoma has been suggested as a possible method to improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess the potential synergistic or ...additive effect of the combination of bevacizumab, directed against the VEGF receptor, and temsirolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods TORAVA was an open-label, multicentre randomised phase 2 study undertaken in 24 centres in France. Patients aged 18 years or older who had untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to receive the combination of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and temsirolimus (25 mg weekly; group A), or one of the standard treatments: sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off; group B), or the combination of interferon alfa (9 mIU three times per week) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; group C). Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of four and eight patients stratified by participating centre and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 48 weeks (four follow-up CT scans), which was expected to be above 50% in group A. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is ongoing for long-term overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00619268. Findings Between March 3, 2008 and May 6, 2009, 171 patients were randomly assigned: 88 to the experimental group (group A), 42 to group B, and 41 to group C. PFS at 48 weeks was 29·5% (26 of 88 patients, 95% CI 20·0–39·1) in group A, 35·7% (15 of 42, 21·2–50·2) in group B, and 61·0% (25 of 41, 46·0–75·9) in group C. Median PFS was 8·2 months (95% CI 7·0–9·6) in group A, 8·2 months (5·5–11·7) in group B, and 16·8 months (6·0–26·0) in group C. 45 (51%) of 88 patients in group A stopped treatment for reasons other than progression compared with five (12%) of 42 in group B and 15 (38%) of 40 in group C. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 68 (77%) of 88 patients in group A versus 25 (60%) of 42 in group B and 28 (70%) of 40 in group C. Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (44%) of 88, 13 (31%) of 42, and 18 (45%) of 40 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. Interpretation The toxicity of the temsirolimus and bevacizumab combination was much higher than anticipated and limited treatment continuation over time. Clinical activity was low compared with the benefit expected from sequential use of each targeted therapy. This combination cannot be recommended for first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding French Ministry of Health and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
Summary Background Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard ...sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST. Methods In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01323400. Findings Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0–37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0–35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1–60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8–30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·37–0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4–5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1–3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 0·37–0·96, p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2–5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 38% in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 36% in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 35% in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six 17% in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five 13% in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three 7% in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms one in each group and one hepatic cytolysis in the best supportive care group). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure. Interpretation Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients. Funding GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard.
This cost analysis aimed to prospectively assess differences in costs between TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with head and neck cancer.
Economic data were ...gathered from a multicenter study. However, randomization was not possible due to the availability of equipment. Costs were calculated using the microcosting technique from the hospital's perspective (in 2013 euros), and the time horizon was radiation therapy. Only resources that entered the hospital production process and which were likely to vary between the strategies being compared were considered. Acute adverse events observed within the time horizon were also assessed.
The cost analysis was based on a total of 173 patient treatments given between 2010 and 2012 in 14 French cancer centers: 73 patients were treated with TomoTherapy, 92 with VMAT RapidArc, and 8 with VMAT SmartArc. Estimated costs of SmartArc were removed from the comparison due to the small sample size. The mean ± SD cost per patient of the treatment planning phase was €314 (±€214) for TomoTherapy and €511 (±€590) for RapidArc. Mean costs ± SD per patient of irradiation reached €3144 (±€565) for TomoTherapy and €1350 (±€299) for RapidArc. The most sensitive parameter of irradiation was the annual operating time of accelerators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the mean costs of irradiation were €3016 to €3272 for TomoTherapy and €1281 to €1408 for RapidArc. The number of acute adverse events during radiation therapy was not significantly different between strategies.
TomoTherapy appeared to be more expensive than RapidArc mainly due to the higher price of the accelerator, the higher costs of maintenance, and the longer duration of treatment sessions. Because strategies were not significantly different in clinical effect, RapidArc appeared to be the strategy to be recommended at this stage of knowledge.
PDF
